Notice of continuing editing: This page contains several components which are related to the overall electronic book's theme. However, they are not, yet, distinguished by future chapter identification.

During the fifth century BCE, a change took place on the other side of the world — from those of us living on the western shore of the Gulf of Mexico — that would eventually produce from that twenty-five hundred or so years ago, but finally nearing its zenith a little later in the twentieth century, the Westbury High School Rebel in Houston, Texas. That earlier period is hallmarked for its simultaneously but coincidentally occurring in different regions of the planet a new focus on how the Earth’s human populations would begin to evaluate and then conduct themselves, particularly during non-civil times. This change would bring and maintain attention to and thus always upon understanding the individual human consciousness and how it related with itself, its likes, and its dislikes, as different from just projecting or transferring the authority for all analytical and management theories and implementation models onto the responsibilities of the myriad Gods, emperors, empresses, kings and queens governing the equally varied regions.

That approximately two and one-half millennia civilizational developmental process began with three ancient and separate, but eventually coalescing through time and experience, elements. They would then be adapted by their users to the rigors and stresses caused by not only their differences, but invasion of and thus interdiction by other forces. They were comprised of distinctions in human construction, hallmarked often by violence, hegemony, and magisterially applied pathological ruling-like controls intended to subjugate the three elements, as well as the peoples who used them.

The world studied and tested those management variables, eventually in the twentieth century homogenizing them in to a management response intended for not just survival of the physical lives of the species, but to better define how its consciousness functioned and to determine its capacities for advancing itself. Taking that process of managerial evolution as a whole, that is, as an ever-integrating management epistemology, and then synthesizing it within the Texas tradition of and for storytelling as the “Westbury Rebel,” an answer emerges therefrom to current and repeatedly posed interrogatories: “Does Western civilization (WC)” in its individually focused democratic representation “have the will to,” or, “can it survive against the forces that are attempting to destroy it, whether from without or within?” Where the initial essay-discussion (entitled "Part III: The Good Rebel in Most of Us") focused on the development of the identity components underlying that interrogatory, this summary (essay) argues that the herein referenced three- (plus a fourth to be added through discussion shortly in this essay) -element ancients' methodological coalescence is not only saving WC from extinction, but that the nature of its ever-developing answer, no matter the bleakness that envelopes the collective minds of free peoples during the worst of every challenge, will continue to do that forever.

That civilization-saving-change is still being added to, assimilated and even celebrated today as it is manifested in the idea, instantiation and image of the Westbury High School Rebel of Houston, Texas, particularly its first, 1962-1965, graduating classes. Of course as you will see, this school and its initial era serve not just a practical story-telling function for a specific place and time, nor is it just about the twelve hundred students from those classes who would become the world's heroes, but is as well a metaphor, that is a symbol for, and a truth representing all the dedicated high schoolers coming out of the America of the 1950s, 60s, and then going on forever, culminating so far in the world of today in this year, 2012, and that which no doubt will follow.

From the Ancients and Lesser Expecteds

Beginning and firstly, from the land of India and following his teachings for over a half century, and as he was dying in 400 BCE at Kushinagar, now in Uttar Pradesh, Siddhartha admonished in the last sentence he would utter to his disciples and followers, who during that process of this first Buddha’s passing hung on every word and syllable he spoke, to strive, and in the process attempt to achieve all that was good within themselves. The idea behind his message and teachings: strive non-violently – peacefully in all things managerial. Buddha would direct us to search for, to find that which is also wonderfully and profoundly peaceful within ourselves; to give that experience of solace, quietude, introspectively directed learning, and love not just to those (our) selves, but as well to others, a formidable and identifiable place of serious meaning and caring within one’s individualized domain and thus and then, collectively for the society.

Secondly, a little later and a few miles away in the Hellens (Greece), an apparently PTSD (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder) suffering veteran of the Peloponnesian War, which was still going on according to some views in 399 BC, was also in the process of dying. Socrates was being executed for apparently striving ─ his way ─ too much, introducing the concept of protest against the current (and first world class democratically elected) government to his fellow Athenians while they were trying to defend themselves against Sparta. The former happened to be the group that started this management-by-the-peoples methodology we've discussed in this paper (referring to the main and original Op-Ed and related essays). Like Siddhartha, Socrates and the Athenians had suffered immeasurably during this conflagration of its citizens — as had the whole of Greece throughout the previous thirty-two years of death, destruction, degeneration of and incaluable loss to its previously lauded civilization. But unlike the first Buddha, Socrates didn't have too many admonitions to pass on at that moment of death, excepting to encourage his students to try not to become so emotional about his passing. It was to be forthcoming within a few seconds. They would cry anyway.

No matter the structured and interrogatorially-based Socratic method's inventor's reticence so near the grave to give advice, his words, work, referring to the referenced structured interactive format, and propensity for honesty ─ truth telling to whomever and particularly institutions of authority pretty much no matter what ─ would eventually underpin the common law incorporated by the soon to be developing Western civilization in operating (managing) itself. And honesty presented through martyrdom — not to always refer to taking poison, being burned at the stake, or crucified for advancing a particular social principle, but maybe just, for example, damning the personal or job-based consequences for the asseveration of a truth — became a valuable method of protest or otherwise influencing some aspects of the public; at least in democracies that would work out pretty well. Socrates made his mark, that is introduced this civilization-changing axiom of and to interactive (managerial) thought, almost at the same time as Buddha advanced his.

Thirdly, between these two strongly daedal ─ meaning here creatively detailed applications of themselves ─ but passing, thinkers lay the community known as Babylon. In this special period, the people, not necessarily dying but at least having suffered, too, greatly and being incarcerated there, decided it was a good time to tell their story in writing. So they set to work, producing the beginnings of the Torah, the Bible and eventually to be Talmud which would not just chronicle their histories but accent their themes for worshipping, and emphasize their methodologies regarding living. In that process, they would also pass on their most prized possession: their collective intellects showing not just what they had thought during and over the fullness of their histories, but how they did it and what it meant; that genius was now being transcribed to scrolls immortalizing those gifts for the rest of us. They would tell the stories among others of how they and their world were created and of the lives of their most esteemed: Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon. Their writings would presage the coming of the saving Messiah, and in following years-centuries report a similar but also diverging story of the peaceful and loving Jesus. Making use of the down time during captivity, these and other beginnings of their civilization were recorded for, as they say, posterity ─ every-thing and -body leading up to us, and then on. Over the next nine hundred or so years this intelligentsia and always strengthened by its extraordinary commoners would add their experiences, usually deified ideas, developing history and ever continuous attempts to evolve into worthiness.

No matter that these people, to be known as Israelites, originally were from the southern and oriental side of the Mediterranean, they were later to be incorporated by virtue of their codification activities across that sea into our Western one. And this (their) written compendium would then add to their strengths as a people in creating and administering a nation that whether at home in Jerusalem later, or wandering the world as a diaspora over a millennia or so would hold them in their collective consciousnesses together. As occurred with and from the works of the Buddha and Socrates, even when not part of the Jews’ tribes or peoples, the rest of us would benefit from their existences and orderly contributions to understanding and managing the human consciousness. They were called by emerging competing and parallel thought models as “People of the book.” We, meaning many if not most of us, would read it.

One of the most important of those three donations, and one which tied them all together in their collective influences, included introduction of the concept that somebody should stand up against current ruling authority, or sometimes class, whenever it appeared to go askew in its management of the masses. Thus, these three hard-working, dedicated and esteemed contributors gave us imbued, that is, not just of the troublemaking variety, Rebelism, albeit with somewhat different and thus not always seemingly congruous approaches to it.

Both Buddha’s and the Jews’ advisories were special. They were about helping individuals no matter their authorities to raise themselves up by striving to do good through intrepidly, to include meaning in this use mostly courageously, peaceful means. Socrates added to the managerial milieu the concept of specifically, as in confrontationally, debating authority, applying that activity reasonably and always with its key, strict adherence to honesty, and at all costs. The Jews’ added contribution to Rebelism included consistency and congruency of presentation of both their themes and advisories: a transcript and thus model of and for order that stressed an honour to life. Taken or applied together, these methods would begin to tolerate, if not to build through protection of the existence of both individual and collective human ontologies. They had been presenting from inception, meaning way-back-when and even before the ancients started writing these kinds of things down. But now they were getting recognition, and through that concentrated application, emphasis. In terms of how each such individual essence was differentiated or blended when possible, every human ─ and this would happen even before development in the late twentieth century of the understandings of the relationship of the genome to life’s experience in forming human distinction ─ would be presented like a persona’s fingerprint. That uniqueness began to be celebrated, and to be held in high, cherished even. It would provide a purpose, if not in part a means, to the notion of existence, increasingly over the millennia thought of as valuable.

As politics would have it, in their applications, passages and tests "striving" for inner and behavioural goodness, debating with honesty and reason, and being faithful to adopted doctrine and particularly in its exercise of renovation ─ like our charter declarations and constitutions as they would be set out in script ─ had taken an unexpected turn over the centuries. A division, developed out of the various exigencies attending implementation of the referenced pretty ancient notions, now motivated them to extend themselves to address conflict resolution, also to include when necessary "fighting" and its rules for application.

That strife occurred primarily, though, not just due to differences between the three modalities, and not to mention regrettably, but because God or somebody, had apparently also created the psychopath (herein acronised as “PP” – not coincidentally like in “Pol Pot”). And, it's corrupting influences on ordered, caring-striving, conflict resolution through truth-telling and tranquillity management were not planned-for in the original three ancients’ thinkings. The definition of such an entity, the PP, used in this paper (and for a formal analysis of the fairly complete literature pertaining to a strict delineation by the authors of Psychopathy — as distinguished from such things as Conduct Disorder, Sociopathy and just general troublemaking — as an illness and its biological vs. hereditrary causes and effects, see The Psychopath: Emotion and the Brain; 2005; by Blair, Mitchel and Blair) refers to the thought/behavioral processes through which a person who knows the rules by which the individuals comprising its system adhere so as to all get along, but who determines that such rules don’t apply to him or herself. Not only do PPs think, conclude and believe that they are above such mechanisms governing interactions, but they turn system components, that is, other people, into objects for maintaining those beliefs. Thereafter, psychopaths don’t see human essence as referenced in this thesis; but instead only see individuals as vessels intended for maintaining the PP’s reality, or views, or now increasingly pathological perspectives of their environment: the community the PP inhabits.

Regarding preceding usage of “God or somebody,” I’m not being flippant. If you don’t already know, psychopaths can be created two ways. One occurs phylogenetically: those folks are missing from the start the neuromolecular underpinnings of emotion, to include empathy, a trait that makes it difficult to continue murdering people, assuming the psychopath goes homicidal (which all don’t) and once one embarks upon that activity. The other creation, or a near likeness if not a biological match, spawns from the environmental influence of untoward experience: severe abuse of the beginning psych in new peoples; pathological ─ meaning coerced/forced or at least incongruously administered identity-, perception-, behavior- and person-changing and to include personality substrate- (neuromolecular) -altering ─ drug, including alcohol, use; and splitting (dissociation) and control of the psych as is engineered in and by cult- (to include PP-led) -based organizational management formations. Although that information would be helpful in determining a remedy in controlled treatment and criminal rehabilitation settings, in the public or political arena, not so much so. Once the PP, no matter how it was created, gets in charge and in particular turns homicidal, the supposed-to-be containing system and its followers are pretty much goners; and usually so also are the peoples’ next door.

A PP will always take what it can get, presuming he or she believes the object(s) ─ like another person; or just his or her mind; or group; or property such as land, dwellings, cattle, crops, chickens, hogs (where edibility is acknowledged as spiritually acceptable), silverware / jewellery if one has any, and, in the old days, women; or say, for another example, a nation ─ receiving the targeted pathological focus (marauding / devouring) is for the taking, as in plundering. That intrapsychic-expanded-to-eventually-be-an-interactional phenomenon causes and becomes one of the natures — another being the Behavioral-to-Systems-based (BS) thought model described in Part III (conclusion) The Good Rebel in Most of Us; Distinguishing Good from Bad Rebels in this pretty true Texas storytelling series — of aggression. The usually opined sources such as economic disparity, class distinction, racial / ethnic prejudice, religious difference, old memories pertaining to intergenerationally-handed-down-unhappiness, or just plain old hate are only the PP's clothings. They provide the disguises which the PP exploits, by hiding in or behind them, therein and over the centuries distracting problem analysts-solvers.

During and following a particular melee, like a war or pogrom, or some other kind of unfortunate manmade disaster-tragedy-mass murder, those analysts' work, no matter how stringently they've endeavoured to immunize themselves (by applying a steeled discipline to objectivity) from unfairness-thinking, those critical thinkers still become, unbeknownst to most, more truly affected by pretty naturally understandable hysterics. Thus, such affected problem solvers from history have frequently missed, mostly because nobody had a reasonable alternative management method — meaning they were without a quick-killing-based problem solving model like the latest drone machinery (being operated from the desk of the oval office and from the Executive's laptop) — with which to easily control or, where more challenged to otherwise eliminate the PP's and its engineering as manifested in organizational management doctrines, influence. And no one has yet to figure out how to use the drone war or international politics management concept when the PP runs a national organization underpinned by a legitimacy supported by geographical boundaries (meaning defensible borders), different kinds and interpretations of cultural relativism, some identifiable peoples-management philosophies, maybe some economic specializations, and things like that. Hence, until executive-ordered-death-of-those-not-liked by high flying unmanned drone technology came along a few years ago, no one has known what to do about the PP, other than fight just to survive when it was almost too late to do that, or else make up some views about how the PP wasn't all that bad after all — just misunderstood or culturally different, and most probably somebody who we shouldn't mind either surrendering or otherwise submitting to, depending on whether the PP uses, respectively, a secular- or non secular-based takeover model.

Regardless of the God- or Not-based model selected, it relies on implementation of Robert Lifton's interpretation of Totalism for success. "Totalism" is the PP created and driven psychic force that pervades polities by placing its members into high velocity spear-trajectory-like trances, which then attempt to take over the individual and collective minds of us otherwise ordinaries, at least while we are distracted — say, during a fishing trip, or while gardening up our front and maybe backyard earth art creations, or doing something spectacularly small but infinitely rewarding in our garage woodworking shop — from managing the bigger world's life-imposing-changing events.

Examples for the former (secular-based PP-organized model) include the infamous German National Socialism philosophy and political party and of course the Soviets and their methodological offspring Chinese People's Republic. The latter or non secular-based Totalism-casted polities have been represented by the historic followers of the Vatican (still billion members-strong) before it underwent reformation; the Calvinists and Knox versions of protestantism before they were constrained by the Scottish enlightenment (it began at the beginnings of the eighteenth century); the rising and eventually sinking (in the mid twentieth century) Sun deitized dynasty of the Japanese Empire's pre WWII-ending; and Islam, which somehow has managed to avoid similar reformations, albeit every scientific apologist for that system of divine Totalism thinks it's going through a reformation now. Although thinking NOT, I guess we can hope. You'll remember, I'm sure, that the term Islam once did and still does today mean "submission."

Also remember, please: you can't have Totalism supported by its most assured representatives (dedicated erudite Totalists holding together totalitarian organizational creations) without good solid PP leadership invariably coordinated with on-your-knees styled surrender of human ontological goings-on to the particular abstract in charge of individual and collective consciousness. That abstraction, whether formatted secularly or non, is always the great cause or enterprise, whatever it may be, which can and does when enjoined with the Behavioral-to-Systemism (BS) modality (described in Part III Conclusion to The Good Rebel in Most of Us; Distinguishing Good from Bad Rebels), facilitate nice or otherwise pretty good people to kill others, and not because those others are necessarily doing bad things, but for thinking differently from that which the cause's manifesto ordains.

Think not? To assuage any innocent naivete the reader may bring to this discussion, let me refer you to a few non European documentaries (in case you are tired of studying the Nazi-mindset-model for turning innocents into mass murderers). From the orient, one is the "Flute Player." Another is entitled "S21: The Khmer Rouge Killing Machine." A third for your learning-through-viewing pleasure would be "Camp 14: Total Control Zone."

Non-psychopathically affected people would be safe in environments where no PPs existed. And where if they did, adequate defenses were established by the innocent to prevent such different psychological entities from believing that the non-PP’s mind and body, and his or her things, including loved ones, were available for forced consumption or some other kind of non-approved acquisition.

Psychopathic leadership’s entry upon the world scene necessitated the devolution of the initial three hand-me-down managerial approaches from getting the best out of the human consciousness to something considerably more difficult, if not primal: just keeping it alive long enough to figure out what it needed to. And so “striving” would evolve or devolve, depending on one’s view, and be melded by non-Buddhist interpretations in their meanings to physically fighting such ambitiously determined hegemons, particularly if innocent life was to be at risk as it most always was when PPHs (psychopathic homicidals) came to town.

That phenomenon required at times innocent naivetés to participate in usually awful but also regrettably necessary horrendous physical altercations. So another management variable related to whom, when and how to fight by nice people had to be developed. And that exigent initiated over a number of centuries for a few constituents some seemingly unnatural but eventually determined to be necessary aggressiveness from and by these otherwise mostly friendly people, like Alvin York from the twentieth century backwoods of Tennessee, for example. That would take striving across the line designated by the advocates of peace and reason ─ fighting by us (and exemplified by the referenced former Christian Pacifist who eventually would become the most decorated American serviceman as an Army Sergeant serving in WWI) sometimes if not usually correct thinking altruists was added in to the management methodology’s package, expanding it from the earlier three referrence components to now include four.

Emerging Near the Middle of the Twentieth Century: The Westbury Rebel Management Epistemology

Later, Westbury High School in southwest Houston, Texas, which was beginning in the summer and fall of 1961, would draw upon those four ancient interweaving, and not always smoothly, individual and systemic thought and management variables, and then refine them. In doing so, its personnel comprised of principals, teachers and students (with guidance from their parents and the PTAs) would be called upon by advancing events to strengthen that fourth dimension as a protectorate to and for the three ancients’ models for individual and collective management by drawing upon some more recent people’s learnings, also derived from their self-management activities.

To take several examples (which were addressed in some detail in "Part III" of these related essays - referencing the "Good Rebel in Us All"), they included: a group of newly enlightened, albeit east coast, American colonists who eventually, over about a hundred and fifty years of interacting as pioneering, but simultaneously being sort of subject-like (pick a foreign heritage) independents, on the new continent with various European investing monarchies, figured out that they would have to throw off the leadership yoke of the most current (in 1775) ruling mentally ill English king; a Mexican priest and indigenous Indians (from the native American component of the continent) who were upset with a seemingly always exploiting (meaning it was keeping all the gold) Spanish monarchy which, although its players, albeit often Y and I (meaning "Young and Inexperienced") were not necessarily noted for being mentally challenged (like the English and sometimes French and Hanoverians), lived too far away to be effective; Texican settlers rebelling against a Mexican El Presidente who was argued to be doing his job too narcissistically, that is, meaning pathologically so; a bunch of thought-to-be unfairly taxed thus imprudently controlled American developing agrarian southern states which in attempting to follow their initiating organizational-promulgating documentation, the Declaration of Independence, were trying to separate from the just-formed and seemingly then unrepresentative American union (editor’s note – the fuller issue of slavery’s impact on the Westbury Rebel management epistemology is considered in the main essay from which this summary is formulated); the female gender’s address of their role in symbiotic servitude with their male conqueror / conqueree, depending upon one’s slant regarding which gender was dominant, counterparts; and a host of Americans who recently in the middle of the twentieth century would reject outright a new un-god’s, that is, the self-styled “first” secular “Psychologist’s,” Friedrich Nietzsche’s, notion of human perfection as administered through the culling-of-lessors and -disagreeables method applied by his both central and even a little earlier more eastern European followers.

An Historic Confluence: Pursuit of Individual Inner Peace with World Pacifism Management; As Integrated with Bugs, Swine, Cows and African Wildlife Thereafter, problems with modality implementation would accrue and accentuate. Fighting, apparently no matter the seeming worthiness of the cause, ran contra to the concept of inner and often argued-to-be God-ordained directive to achieve inner peace at all costs. Those enervations to defensive force-based management were hard lessons learned by the unfortunate Italians subsequent to their Emperor Constantine's fourth century AD conversion to nicer and more introspectively-oriented and responsibility-taking-for-bad-things thinking, causing, that is at least initiating, in many views, and particularly Edward Gibbons's — the most recognized authority on the subject — the decline and fall of that once thought-would-exist/rule-forever empire: Rome's. It was classic Pacifism gone wild; and given some practical assistance from those (Goths, to include the Hun and apparently some sailing Scandanavians—a loving and sexually advanced people unfortunately stigmatized for being so pruriently open throughout history as "barbarians") who were always going south, apparently and mostly just to get out of the cold. That natural, meaning unplanned, pincer movement, again another deadly combination of Pacifism (first coming out of the south, but eventually to become internalized) and robust killing (from the north), should be and has been argued to have formed the circumstances for the advent of the Dark Ages, filling the vacuum-created loss of that past world's superpower with nothing, other than maybe what our men of the line fighting in twenty-first century Iraq and Afghanistan have called (privately in therapy sessions) the roach effect.(1)

(1)The "roach effect" refers to Islam's manifestation and then continued worldwide advance of itself under difficult, otherwise thought by some to be trying — if not what should have been exterminating — conditions. For example, after its initiating leadership passed in 632AD, the movement should have fallen back and regrouped in the desert, or maybe just given up the cause — which implementation methodology included distributing peace and death in parallel, keeping everyone in its path on their toes and because of the lesser of the dramatic options happy to give up their spoils and pay the jizya (a tax on conscience) — and as finally did the Khan family. But instead it only took one century to expand into newly conquered territories (then, now, and always to become "Muslim" or "Allah's" lands). Colonizing most of that just south and then east of the Mediterranean, the aggressives — not that they didn't get preaggressed by some Europeans who were coming a half millennium earlier from the other direction — poured across the water into Western Europe's Andalusia, converting Christendom's Spain into a dhimmi state. Overflowing with success-stimulated growth pains and fervant neverending belief in its two and mutually supporting missions — that is, to bring the one true God to the world, and a little more practically to collect four-fifths of the war booty — the ever-growing infestation even pressed into the south of France, but where the swarm was crushed at Tours by the Hammer (Charles Martel) in 732AD (or CE, whatever you use). Where they should have been done, they weren't, consolidating Spain with its Christian and Jewish inhabitants, the southern Russians, the Balkanians all the way up to Hungary, and then taking everything below that going deep down into much of India. The movement mostly cleaned out not just the Christians, Jews, pagans and a few seculars, but brought under dhimmi status those remaining alive from the Buddhists, Zoroastrians (Persia) and Hindus, bringing them, too, in under the Islamic triparte umbrellas of faith conversion (surrender, submit, and die or just be treated badly), protection (for, again because it just won't go away, i.e. the perenially annual discrimination - the jizya), and strict opotheoatically-designed and mystically-/mythically-hyped Behavioral-based living (the Shariah).

With that leadership concoction, Islam didn't seem to be stoppable, at least in the warmer climates; that is, until they met the Mongols during the thirteenth century coming across that great expanse of land from the other way. Worn down physically, Islam's protagonists, again, should have been out of the fight. Instead the Islamic thinking-kinds of fighters used the peaceful religion component of its program to assimilate through conversion those eastern and a little more oriental hordes. As reflected in Andrew Bostom's third scholarly work (Shariah vs. Freedom) on the subject, that group (the Mongols) then learned how to fight for good religious reasons instead of just doing it for the joy of killing. Thanks be to Islam for providing that meaning to sending an adversary off. And, thanks be to who knows? for not sending the philosophical lesson all the way back to the Mongol branch of that empire. Otherwise, that group might have lasted over a millennium, too.

Aside from the challenge by the French and the Mongols, the never-say-die (or -quit) force was stopped twice in or near the Balkins, or thereabouts, once at least stalled for a while in ninth century Andrianople when trying to take Europe from the East; and another European onslaught more centrally targeted at Vienna, in 1683; and then by early twentieth century Alcoholism at the Caliphate in Turkey, the new core of its resilience. The western influencing drinking illness was said to have added to the Muslim's decline pre change to the twentieth century and particularly during WWI. It was suggested, by me (being the only Alcoholism counselor, Drug, Alcohol and Psychological Trauma Treatment Center CEO, and non apologist from the new psycho-historian discipline available to make this interpretation), to be the reason for Islam's getting away from the core of its teachings just before the Caliph was fired by Mestapha Kemil, who was later given the name Attaturk. It means father of Turkey.

The Muslims had fallen so far that when one of the main Imam's called for a holy war to conquer/root-out the British and French who were invading the Ottoman during WWI, nobody showed up. However, shortly thereafter, in 1928, the twenty-two years old Egyptian school teacher Hassan al-Banna restarted the proper principles by founding the Brothers' (the MB) resurgence program. And it has been doing its job well ever since. They even took Europe in the latter half of the twentieth century, this time without — excepting a few cafe, bar, hotel, airliner hijackings and The Olympics bombings — a shot, arrow, or catapult being fired, and without the Europeans even knowing (yet) that they have been conquered. It doesn't take a sword to go successfully against the new alliance of socialists-Pacifists; just intimidating talk ("We'll cut off the gas if you don't do what we tell you!") combined with some sixteenth-through-twentieth century colonization-guilt projections coming from some former, but now pretty well off, noble savages.

American troops met this phenomenon (being hard-to-kill and keep that way) between 1800 and 1816, putting the Barbary pirates (Islam's North African naval contingency) down, finally, in that latter year. Then after making their quartrillionth comeback, the Brothers showed up, looking for more heathens to convert, all the way over here on our own shores (Manhattan's World Trade Center attacks) in 1993 and then more conclusively in 2001. Can you imagine such unwittingness, thinking of New Yorkers as heathens? Followed by our push-back counters in the Muslims' lands, these advancers-of-the-faith in the twenty-first century began to be noted by our men and women combatants for the fighting resilience of their believing membership. That's when they were given the name "roaches": the Islamist fighters kept creeping back in regardless of how thoroughly they were killed off. It was the same pattern/style the Islamists had used for centuries whenever their uses of the hordes in set piece battle failed to, as usually anticipated, annihilate their targets.

This "heavens-motivated-roaches-of-faith" concept (meaning that these organisms' were engineered to inhabit and then rule the global in order to fulfull their deity's desires, wants and instructions) and insect analogous terminology was not applied, however, until the latter part of the first decade of the twenty-first century, and after noticing that the Islamic fighters kept reappearing no matter what was sprayed on or at them. They were so resistant to extermination, it's said by some of our recent returners, that not even nukes or daisycutters were thought to be able to rid the environment of these little creatures, which observations and labeling I would take as a compliment if I were on their side. One thing these combatants were never said to be short of: courage to do battle or otherwise fight.

Although the "Roaches-for-Allah" terminology does not seem flattering on the surface, meaning to refer to a more dashing and dramatic "mujahideen" as a bug, the reference certainly has a multicultural competitive influence helpful to the otherwise to be conquered global as the comparison to a night crawler that scampers up and out of dark places helps to balance out the use of the "ape" and "pig" identifiers Muhammad used (at the beginning) for reducing Jews, also conceptually, to lowborns, and even lesser than that. The latter's synonym, "swine," has been more recently and increasingly hung even on Christians.

I've forgotten what the Hindus, Zoroastrians and Buddhists were called, except that a converted-from-Mongolism Islamic warlord [one of Tamerlane's (born a Uzbeki and also given the name Timur) top men] taking on the Delhi population in the early fifteenth century and murdering that civilian religio-ethnicity pretty much completely, said that anybody worshipping cows needed to be conquered (as apparently primarily meaning to send off into the afterlife) just for being irreligious fools. Now, given our impertinent troops' analogizing of Islam's fighters to the lower form (as interpreted in the pre-fifth century BC Yogis’, and as then passed down to the Buddhists' notion of the Karmic chain of spiritual evolvement) of insects that we are constantly knocking- and reknocking-down in our older American homes way up, or way along, here in the twentieth to twenty-first centuries, the Islamists don't seem so alone in the application of bad manners.

Such has been and is the value of combatants' lexicons in evening out the hurt feelings the masses on each side of these debates experience as we fighting forces all move along, and through, and all the while adding to, history and the enemy-disparagement component of its war jargon. It is the objectifying means that supports dehumanization of whomever is about to lose their heads, or otherwise be blasted into martyrdom and paradise, or hell, depending on which side the deceased find themselves upon departure.

And to think in terms of awesomeness, none of that death and destruction — totaling about two hundred and seventy million innocents (not referring to us warriors, but only to the murdered collaterals) — could have happened without that Roman Emperor's (and immediate follow-up emperors') conversion to the deitized philosophy of peaceful coexistence and mutual love, as in that transformation (getting saved) being of the Christian variety in this reference. Apparently not having benefitted from the troops' in the trenches usages of the roaches-effect perspective, for example, so iterated Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (of whom I am a fan) when referring to the Islamic program; she could see, sense and feel “All the love.”

Pacifists in those earlier days at Westbury High School were mostly Christian, too, as we didn’t have that many (at least declared) Buddhists on the premises and the often called secular-based humanists hadn’t, yet, really gotten started. Moreover, the newly forming humanist-like secular peaceful folks’ which led to pre WWII isolationism and who took a beating for those views for a while following that war in the late 1940s and 1950s, redeveloped voices during the 1960s that said, sometimes not so seemingly (in their political power innervations) Pacifistically, that war was not only not their thing, and they ─ understandably from my view as a trainer and motivator of war folks ─ shouldn’t be made to do it, but upgrading the philosophy and ideology into a proscription by world management of inner aggression, neither should anybody else be allowed to do it (war), almost no matter even as a defensive rationale. Merging Pacifism philosophy with psychological interpretation of those not liked (here, meaning those from the majority not agreeing with the Pacifist's antithetical national suicide-advancing politics), fighting was argued by the currents (still in the 1960s) to be only a function of inner expansion of untoward stressors that served really only to raise reactive aggressiveness tendencies in others, mostly those who in differing locales, for example, nations, were otherwise just innocent friendlies like we ought to and would be if we would just adapt the one hundred percent peaceful inner solution interactive management model the Pacifists were applying intrapsychically (meaning individually) to themselves.

Too bad; those good theorists didn’t yet know about what they would learn anew at the ending of the twentieth century about aggression in the age of molecular neurology. People would prove up to be different, biologically speaking. Thus, the “See;-you-can-trust-us-cause-we're-not-going-to-hurt-you!" and followed by "So,-you-all-be-nice-as-are-we. Please!!!" model would lose its structural logic as a systems-based humankind-saving management modality when pitted against the differently (as from the Pacifists) molecularly and thus psychologically in the end constructed PP. It didn’t always respond, as Pacifism intended, to niceness or laidbackness, seeing such genteelness, from another and more physical view as and of something still enriching, albeit in a different way ─ meaning PPs' seeing others (gentle folks) in another context; that is, as "What’s good for dinner!" Hence, a preimminent peoples' global management learned lesson of, from, and thanks be to, the twentieth century.

Outsiders Debating Inside

Moreover, debate or protest against the power in charge, which not incidentally would fail to be referenced in Socrates’ initiation of his management model ─ didn’t sound like he had time to cover everything ─ would over time include adversaries’ representations in the domains of the managees’ free interchange circles. For example, during the American Revolution, both immigrating from Britain and local born Tories (British Loyalists) using the debate element of the four part model would support the crown against the new American Rebels. At the end of that fight and showing the depth of the irreparable division, thirty thousand of those folks from the losing side, many of them being indigenous to the colonies, were transferred out of the new and then becoming independent country. Demonstrating that managerial confusion and deficit only eighty years later during its Civil War, what remained on the northern side of the United States would be confronted by antiwar protesters who were actually supporting the South (the secessionist Confederacy). Some of those being affected by protest carried-awayism even killed the President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, in an attempt to head off the loss to their side. Down in Texas, its Governor and the man who’d led the Texican Rebels at the Battle of San Jacinto ─ which victory not only freed the settlers from Mexican rule but set up the entire western contiguous territories for annexing by the United States ─ would resign in protest of both the secessionist notion and that Civil War as it started.

The Socratic method, in this instance referencing again the protest against the majority view and authority, would cause the managing majority of the particular polity trials and stresses. Again referencing the American Civil War era as an example, Lincoln opined from time to time that he would like to have several apparently unsupportive (to him) congressmen hanged.

Therein within this aspiring-to-define-freedom management laboratory, and sometimes as a consequence of infiltration, a hostile enemy’s notions could and would be argued out in the open discussions of the free place, creating seemingly irreconcilable conflicts: part of the assemblage to the debate would be arguing for what was a best improvement of the polity or more precisely how to fight a particular war; and another part would intend only to see that home-based polity destroyed, literally, as in demolished altogether. That contravention-to-continuity process tended to weaken a so called free civilization’s growth efforts, making them look like they were no longer ongoing.

I think Melanie Philips describes this phenomenon in the latter part of the twentieth and beginnings of the twenty-first century as The World Turned Upside Down period. In that era, which rolls over to today sometimes, hegemons, referring usually to those from out of state, learned to exploit the protest and reasoning variables of their targets and turn those debates to support of the aggressive ones’ conquering ends.

From America’s inception, anti-sedition legislation that restricted such discussions came and went in response to waxing - waning battle needs and public opinion’s notions of the values of speaking freely versus weakening a polity’s capacities to fight, defend itself, survive. Sedition and treason laws were used fairly sparingly and then discontinued pretty much altogether. That latter event represents their status during the Westbury Rebel component of the twentieth century. Thus, the use of force (or the decision not to use it) by the majority to constrain thought-to-be crippling criticism from or treason (as defined by that legislation) by the minority and sometimes discovered to be outside-based agitprops never fully reconciled the management incongruities existing therein.

Both I and General Nguyen Giap, the latter being the architect of the Vietminh’s use (between 1946-1954) through manipulation of protest in France (its public withdrew military support from their otherwise shown by assiduous-to-detail and notable communist war correspondent, Bernard Fall, to be hard fighting and extremely honorable Frenchmen), and the North Vietnamese in their later American War can attest to the value of orchestrating protests within an opposing democracy’s polity to persuade it to drop the cause otherwise proffered by the original majority. In his interviews following that latter American – Vietnamese War, Giap was said by correspondent Jack Smith, ABC New’s TV anchor Howard K. Smith’s son and wounded (on the walk out of November, 1965, La Drang) veteran of that war, to speak of the general’s and his staff’s hanging on the morning news reports of how the college protests were advancing in America.

Giap knew and admitted that he was done-for militarily; fighting the Americans was to be no cake walk like the troop-support-abrogating and World War II fighting, occupied and understandably weary French public had provided him at Dien Bien Phu. That traumatized group was clearly at the end of their road as world managers, even though some, like that tall moron, DeGaul, would try not to give up. In what the Vietnamese on the other (North's) side called the American War, Giap’s fate lay with the strengths of the New Left’s (the reborn and subsequently less, or at least hopefully so, murderous socialism-supporting Left that formed in the West following Stalin’s organizational demise in 1953-54) orchestration of some American college students who due to TV’s sometimes graphic coverage of battle carnage were understandably upset about conscription, mostly, and a couple of other things highlighted by some of their professors and a Hollywood actress.

Supporting Giap’s supposed admissions with my testimony, as a lower ranking (Private First Class to eventually become Lance Corporal near the end) combatant in theater and then Platoon Sergeant with the Fifth Marine Division back home at Camp Pendleton training new Marines on their way to conflict, I can and do promise the reader that fighting a pretty rigorous enemy while significant parts of the country back home were taking it to our own combatants’ low moral characters and sometimes even also hailed by our science-based scholars as generic killer initiatives via our innately aggressive American boys’ inner and apparently worthless psychologies, was much more damaging than having NVA twenty millimeter auto canons parked in and then being carried out of caves (actually man-made tunnel complexes) attending our rears. If some of you think the usage here of “worthless psychologies” is a little over the top or even exaggerated at all by this author, see the 1974 Academy Award Winner of the Oscar for Best Documentary. It is entitled “Hearts and Minds.” At least we could blow the cannon shooters at our backs to smithereens with a couple of Phantoms after only losing a few of our side to the American protestors’ torpedoes, or more better (intended; exemplifying grassroots historical deep east Texas usage) said in today’s war lexicon, IEDs.

Thank God in the twentieth century for the F4.

Post 1918 Vienna School of Medicine Influence on Development of the Westbury Rebel Era Global Management Modality and its Responses to the Shaming Device (initiated with the Depraved Infant-Sexuality plus infant-Aggression Theories of Returning Combatants' Psychological Innards)

Thus, and given that survival of the individual and attendant concepts related to thought, conscience, speech, religion, and the freedoms to play golf or go fishing, or to even have sinful encounters with the wrong people when all involved were agreed was a goal (again, thanks to the Brothers' Sayyid Qutb for his observations regarding and study in 1951 of the improper sexuality of non-alcohol drinking — meaning his observations were being made in a still dry county — church people attending religion-sponsored dances in Fort Collins, Colorado), we’ve had to work that debating element’s deficiency (again referring to outsiders or actually antagonists attacking us while surreptitiously posing as dedicated aspects of the same-our polity) out over the last fifty years. That was done so mostly by no longer employing the criminal courts’, meaning forced-based treason- and sedition-curtailment options; ending the draft, which systematically removes the preponderance of both natural and believable Pacifists and terrified young erudites from the freedom of expression necessitate; and then our citizenry’s demonstrating openly and from my view, magnificently, their love of and appreciation-admiration for the American veteran. That latter really good thing occurred no matter their (American veterans') once posited-by-academia and some behavioral scientists who were drawing upon post 1918 Viennese psychiatry (as applied to WWI veterans serving on the Prussian side) to be combatants’ ever-fallible characterlogical innards. Along with his unfortunate conclusions about the common occurrence of sexual dementia of women, Freud, who was supported by Schnitzler and a couple of other students of aggression produced by that period’s and geography’s professional population, would scare up some pretty serious hysteria about early childhood sexual deprivation’s (which would eventually be knocked down to Attachment Theory) additional spawning of that military aggressiveness in the troops from those recent WWI trenches, at least for those vets from Austria being so unlucky to present their experiences of PTSD to the Vienna School of Medicine (where Sigmund was in charge of mental health).

It may not feel fair, clear or even necessary to you all for me to besmirch Freud's contribution to combat veteran treatment, especially when he is noted for having initiated so many very good, and particularly non-combat related, things for humankind. So here's only a summary of why this little bit of background from Vienna medicine is VERY important to the protest issues vis-à-vis the developing four part Westbury Rebel management model — meaning fighting coordinated enemies both in front and in back of us has a real (rational) political place in staying alive while engaging PPs — which is making up, and becoming instantiated in, this essay.

The carnage of WWI motivated Freud and the Vienna professional group to contemplate aggressiveness, as there appeared to be a lot of it going on in the trenches and the spaces in between battle lines. Therein, Freud switched from treating seemingly neurotic women in Vienna to caring for instead some of the returning Prussian WWI veterans.

As any good theoretician would do, he first applied his ideas about the unconscious to the vet. He was encouraged to retell the story of the combat experience, during which discussion and evoking of the memories of war trauma, the Vet-patient entered abreaction. He cried a lot. The expectation was that retelling the tale and reexperiencing the event along with feeling the pain attending it, and which had been repressed during the combat, would solve the problem of Shell Shock: being blowed up (intended use) and living sorta without knowing it. But when not getting better pretty fast (not referring to Sigmund, but his patients), Freud said "Aha! I see some ostensible similarities, here. These men (patients-veterans of WWI trench warfare) must be suffering the same childhood sexual dysfunction and subsequent aggression attending two year old children issues as manifested pretty much like/like in and by these often hysterical women who are showing up the VERY same way fairly constantly in my practice." "CAUSE!!!" he said, "Women cry ALL the time, TOO, and NEVER get better, EITHER!"

Two important historical variables can add clarification to this management issue. Being able to draw upon the seventh through eighteenth century writings by Caliphs and other leaders of the ulema regarding women, sexuality, aggressiveness and shopping (see Ibn Warraq's scholarly-like summary of those contributions in Why I'm Not a Muslim; chapter fourteen is risibly precise about the problems that the masculine intelligentsia of Islam had in understanding and managing women - don't miss it!), Freud eventually concluded that being a woman (the psychodynamic aspects of the epistemology of being of the female gender), itself, must be pathognomonic. Additionally, where Freud's work relied upon considerable introspection / analyses regarding his own inwardly-focused thoughts and progresses in understanding dreams about his mom and dad, women patients and the relationships with them in the development of the (his) psychoanalytic model, in this new switch to its application to returning combatants, he apparently was unable to draw upon such (more) subjectivized personal experience; the good doctor / thinker had apparently never been blown through the air or partially dismembered by an exploding grenade or howitzer round.

Hence, as in from which, Freud's innocuously intended, meaning he was just trying to help, notions of combat-caused PTSD were passed on and inevitably not so harmlessly applied to American veterans of both the Korean and Vietnam Wars nearly a half century later where and when the Freudian PTSD treatment theories also took on, and could be used strategically to induce, political ramifications.

The Shaming Device

One was the neat — "neat" because it managed, without repercussions to its administrators, to bypass logic, reason, accountability and laws against defamation — shaming device. Albeit having tenacles reaching down through most civilizations over the millennia, the device was given formal calling through the Behavioral-to-Systems (BS) takeover model used originally during the early to middle twentieth century by Eastern Europeans (See The Conclusion; The Good Rebel in Most of us; Distinguishing Good from Bad Rebels; and How to Strengthen the Former against the Latter). The shaming device, which functions as a collective manager's tool used in the conduct of psychological war against elements of a bunch of current unlikeables was a masses management methodology referenced by America's Secretary of State at a USA, Turkey co-hosted OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) anti American-Islamophobia get-together, circa 2011, used for dumping opprobrium, which that particular government executive learned as a 1960s Alinsky-styled — referring to the Manichean darker side of the democratic force — winning minority opposition political approach, when applied to and upon the returning and battle fatigued policy implementers of that era. Albeit in the beginning only an idiosyncratic, in the end the psychoanalytic theory applied to service combatants became a great post vote-abnegating (to make those in charge abjure in trying to accomplish what they thought they were supposed to) way to bring down a majority.

Bet she never dreamed she'd be able to use, while on the opposite side, for example, of being in charge of government, that shaming method fifty years later to support Islamists, that is, instead of Vietcong. But not her fault, I think. As that failure of prescience was no doubt understandable. I mean, even though they were wandering around trying in pretty much full view to restart the old Islamist-engendered Ottoman Empire by shaking off Kemalism, who in local or grassroots America ever heard of "Islamists" in 1968 when she was getting started? Nor did any of us whose initiations were spawned out of the Big Thicket in East Texas even care about the socio-geo-political-theocratic-ideological-combined-with-marshalling influences attending demographically-inspired individual spiritual Ascensionism and collectively, but multidimensionally [different theories about the Mahdi - referring to the Shia versus Suni interpretations of the hidden, hiding, or just plain lost in its (Islam's) first millennium, Imam] posturing through caliph-based Accessionism in the eastern and southern Mediterranean. We wouldn't have probably cared if such untoward sounding things began showing up on the shores of Galveston Bay, or even on the Gulf of Mexico's beaches, that were only a little further up the channel (Houston Ship) which runs through the middle of that bay. We DO care today, however, as the populace in the Big Thicket is catching on.

That effective schemeola — the whack-o-molic use of selective elements of individual mental internals theory for administering the shaming model which was used to undermine the majority's defensive mission focus — was all ordered up by the New Left's university history-molded-into-psychology departments, then merged with the glazed-eyed SDS (Students for a Democratic Society who gave speeches to their not-as-deep-thinking-compatriot masses on campus) folks wearing student camouflaged outfits before they became popular in the twenty-first century, and the finally discovered to be sexually addictive and codependency/enabling and adaptive leadership-to-be partnership known throughout the 1990s, and even to current periods, as the Clintons. They, both, became lawyers, too.

Later during the twenty-first century's startup, the shaming device — a free speech inhibitor (through application of the chilling effect the device has on expression) when actual damages occur — evolved into hurting people because they just thought and or spoke the opposite of a particular element of a polity's persuasion. That phenomenon has been called political correctness (PC) here (in America). Someone thinks or says something that doesn't seem to be in vogue with one constituency, and without a trial the thinker/sayer is excommunicated/exiled, to include usually losing his or her job, career, other contracts for earning a living, general popularity, and the like. It's sorta similar to being a Vietnam veteran during the 1960s and 1970s, but actually only living as a non aggressive member of the public who mistakingly expressed private or personal views about a controversial subject, and which differ from those held by the group administering the shaming mechanism. Say the wrong thing in the public sector, and you're fired in the private one; and visa-versa, of course. Pretty soon, no one can remember where it is ok to say anything: hence, the definition of the "chilling effect." One needs to be more seriously careful, if making an economic living is important, when opening his or her mouth.

Shaming targeted constituencies is an off-legal (In America, meaning defamation is sidestepped with the opinion clause/defense) means of nuking the influence of those receiving the brunt of the methodology. When a non government person applies it, implementation functions like a violation (albeit not legal one) of freedom of speech because the credibility of the speaker is attacked, beat the heck out of, or at least just challenged before any words present, or a couple of unpopular ones have. The target's vote and prospective rippling voting influences are cancelled. When the government intentionally uses it (shaming device) to prevent speech/dissent, I think it does become a legal matter, although that concept has yet to be ajudicated. If defamation is not available for contesting the method, the best (outside of the Etiotropic — Strategic Human Ontological — management approach described in Part V of this series) if not only effective rational/cognitive-based (debate) defense in current America against the Clintonian-referenced (1960s' attack upon the culture to early 21st century PC-oriented same doings) shaming applications is immediate declamation: formal and public rejection of the opinions that are the carriers of the device, followed by accurate interpretations of their motives. Answer with serious scrutiny, "What purposes do the device applications serve?", and then fight them.

In Europe, however, there IS a legal defense against the shaming application. Hate speech laws that view methods and speech intended to incite a populace to dislike a part of itself are processed as a criminal complaint/matter; and no matter that the anti-hate effort, itself, impinges on freedom of speech. For example, in 2013, France brought such charges against American (while visiting France to receive a French award for something) singer-actor-entertainer-protestor Bob Dylan for adding to one of his interview comments opined-to-be aspersions against some Croats for their uses of force against members of a former but now contiguous component of the once whole of that poor (and former) Yugoslav group.

Today's president, also a lawyer, who's become proficient at the same if not slightly more harsh (an Alinsky fan, as well) shaming approach, was only seven years old during 68, and as described by some to have been wandering around spiritually, and as is finally being reported mid-term if not late in his presidency, apparently on his way at that early age to becoming gender-confused-based while lost in Indonesia. I wonder if that, per chance, led to HIS inner aggressiveness, too, like combat veterans of old.

Better or worse than all that, the positiveness or negativeness, meaning depending on whose side one was on, it (the shaming device — in this instance again referring to the use of psych theories and PC to degrade representatives of the opposition during debate) not only diverted focus from ascertaining the real causes of war and consideration of the necessity of defense, but made the whole thing look like one big intrapsychic-only problem for those neither erudite nor non-passively-oriented members of the society, us American combat veterans. Oliver Stone finished his hit movie (Platoon) about himself — which only got the rain and the bugs right — with that borrowed theme: "We (militaries) were just fighting ourselves;" spoken rhetorically as the extraction helicopter lifted off for the security of the main base. What a bunch of culturally enriching thinkers! Although their followers might be, certainly nobody ever said PPs were stupid.

Well here's the newest, but thirty-five years old growing conclusion, which was initiated by no one less than me now several decades ago. When combat PTSD patients — since this Westbury Rebel entered the PTSD treatment fracas in the 1970s somewhat like an early 1960s Rebel defensive safety or cornerback (see those skills' developments and applications in the two football short-stories attending the beginnings of this series) — are addressed, the thought or clinical model that shifts focus to childhood or ANY fairly distant pre combat trauma happenings is shown to encumber the resolution process. Infantile level sexual confusion interpreted as the cause of later years' both pre and post combat aggression is only one of the misdirecting errors made by psychotherapists and laymen and when working with trauma perps' targets. They are all exploited by the opposition in attempts to immobilize the defenders of a free expression-based society.

Following such unfortunate application of those kinds of professional and initially Freudian engineered focus-shifting mistakes (now thought of as revictimization of the already clobbered), the actual culprit for the protractedly-appearing-in-this-society malady is not the internally retained, or that is etiology of, trauma, as it can be worked out naturally if given the unobstructed opportunity, but instead is the "You're guilty for all things" (professionally called, thanks to Sigmund, "Determinism") thought construct attending the clinical modality that changes the focus subsequent to the initial catharsis that follows the telling-of-the-tale stage in academe-based care. Sucking into the trauma pathology's natural survival controls, the post-abreaction veteran is facilitated by helping professional dummies to ask "What made me bring all that war stuff upon myself, I wonder?"

That is, the secret to combat or any trauma-caused PTSD cure — which because of the Westbury Rebels' discovery-contribution while standing against that European designed weapon, those high schoolers will save the world — is to facilitate reintegration of the immediate and most profound pretrauma existential identity elements of the psyche with the post trauma ones. That means the molecular substrate of the event-sundered (meaning getting blowed up) identity placed into extinction is allowed to complete that otherwise naturally (phylogenetically engineered) process.

Those sundered identity elements comprising the core of the traumatizing process are seemingly simple to the observer and the affected person. They (the sundrances) are comprised of contradictions to the existential composition of that identity — those values, beliefs, images and representations of reality that underpin ongoingness or continuity. For example, carnage to the upper trunk of another person's body or even one's self contradicts the immediate existential belief that the top part of one's inhabitance is required for continuity. Emphasizing the simplicity of the sundrance (cause of extinction), one can't breathe without lungs; nor make blood flow properly without a heart; nor think adequately without a brain; nor eat food without a stomach or intestines. So seeing those destructions in the wounded associate or corpse one is carrying, or lying next to, contradicts those immediate beliefs about how life is supposed to be, ongoing that is. Thanks to such things as projection and transference, those carnages then pose in the viewer's mind as hysteria-forming interrogatories: "How would I think properly if my brain was torn apart and lying on the ground?" Or, "What if my lungs or even heart had a piece of steel like that embedded in this other person's?" Or again, "How would I function, to mean, again, go on living, if those were my intestines lying in the dirt outside of that person's body."

Well, after a while, and once that reality of that past/previous existence begins to be extinguished neuromolecularly within the brain/mind of the survivor, you don't. Worse, you never will if you allow the hysteria attribute famous to systems, to mean collective massaging and administering of delusion, denial and group distracting abstracts and other notions about cause, to define what happened to you, or maybe your loved ones or associates in battle.

All the elements of extinction begin their processes in that part of the brain that houses them. Some physical evidence suggests the location is the mossy fibers of the Hippocampus. But the only thing related to the location that is truly important is that existential identity destruction and subsequent extinction processing occurs in different locations from those memories pertaining to previous learning and even trauma affected elements of the housing authority (the brain). Hence, look to those other areas or for that matter anywhere but to the core synaptic changes and circumlocution begins, and then eventually takes over mental processing, which camoulflages the extinction activity.

Giving that camoulflage more strength, as to mean increasing the delusion/denial (thought of as hysteria in this Etiotropically-focused work/view) that attends individual and systemic trauma etiology (existential elements of identity entering extinction), redirecting focus to unrelated earlier life and particularly distant issues like childhood anythings only misdirect the poor veterans, and systemically speaking not to mention their loved ones, families, neighbors, government, and their nation as a whole, into a lifetime loop of wondering what hit them. The extinction sends the abstractionists into a systemic swirl of hyterical questions that looks much like the satelite view of a hurricane's bands of increasing wind velocity as the force nears its center. Those interrogatories, vacuously-imposed abstractions by third party inanities, and apparently intended to last forever, blame (i.e., ignite the shaming device's engine) the whole shebang — as in the deterioration of Western civ as an entity — on the combatant, Mom and Dad, the CIA, FBI, NGOs for capitalism, Lyndon Johnson and all the presidents thereafter, and mostly anybody BUT the University PPs who created and continued that now nearly one hundred year multidimensional hamster treadmill-likened locumotion, that is, circular system of intellectual (as in thought) masturbation, also vernacularly-labeled in trenches-based clinical environments where real downtroddens are trying to recover if not just find themselves, "mind-f**k**g". (If one thinks of recovering drug addicted-, alcoholic-, Kleptomanic-, prostitute-, gang-member-, convict-, transsexual- and early releaser-lingo as a form of rap emanating from the socially doubtable mental health trenches, then their lexicon born out of halfway house group therapies that return those folks to regular status seems to have been integrated into a less offensive and thus increasingly more acceptable place within the culture.)

Mind-intercourse. See; I've been inferring that sexuality had something to do with something in this part of the essay. Not to disappoint, am referring in this instance to the thought frameworks and subsequent operational mechanisms managing the intrapsychic, interactional and systemic politics of academes. And there's even in this era an expatriate former Special Forces Green Beret going to school somewhere in Europe who is making much of the sexual issues affecting American combatants, thus influencing American foreign policy. He, too, thinks the failure of combatants to mature, as apparently successfully have Europeans, to their truer more procreative-oriented instincts is the basic cause of war and the like, all brought about by America's sexual shallowness.

I've been betting that that Green Beret has become tired, if not outright jealous of Navy Frogmen (who, just as Darwin predicted, started crawling out of the water and where upon getting farther inland were issued new names-identities, snipers' rifles, and publicity agents) getting all the press. The great public relations-engineered hoax is that these new SEALS were not necessarily tougher (in military fashion), but only more photogenic — meaning because of their taller heights, smaller waistlines due to swimming, and, according to the women polled at all of America's liberty sea ports, nicer (the actual word was "cuter") outfits — as in better looking than were the round green hats, not to mention us shorter and much less sexually charismatic Marines. But the Swabbies' acclaimed notoriety and meteoric rise to the top of the interview circuit has actually been deserved as the Special Forces guys only had that Sadler song from the 1960s (which was intended to strengthen their self esteem against the perpetual onslaught by psycho-theory armed college masses) to brag about, and which they had used in an attempt to usurp the couple of hundred years of hard earned honor and publicity from, by and of the always humble and altruist US Marine Corps (the old Corps folks). That Army guy turned European philosopher must be drinking the water in Austria, which makes everybody envious of everybody else, and then project all that on to their competitors as sexual dysfunction, or at least strangeness.

The smart new lefties, eventually to be called the Hard Left, and a bunch of other things like Communists, Socialists, anarchists, nihilists and Totalists over the years, parlayed during social cannabis inhalant séances and beer guzzling spring, Halloween, Thanksgiving and Christmas break sabbaticals that simple self-blaming mechanism and revictimization of combat veterans representing the majority's defensive decision making process into the near destruction of Western civilization. Shame the combat veteran; shame those who raised them and their creators, which was comprised of the culture made up of the American people, in that particular period (1960s) referring to those who fought WWII and then stopped the Bolsheviks from advancing in Korea, Greece, western Europe and pretty much everywhere else. The Bolsheviks now (circa 1960s) in our home knew they hadn't been able to beat our predecessors in the battlefield. Thus, they focused on doing it at home where and when we naivetés mistakenly thought we were safe.

The New or Hard Left — which incidentally drew its constitutional thought constructs from the same original (sort of) thinkers’ environment that would produce not just the referenced clinical tragedy (travesty?) by the fastest mass identity political change in recorded history (Austria's spring vacation, March, 1938, weekend), that is, the group switch from virtually none to all Nazi supporters of the slick-talking German Fuhrer, but and a little earlier Engelsism, the young (22 to 24 years of age. He must have been a prodigy) Nietzsche’s couple of books, and again thanks to all three — would be still firing those analytical and psychiatric motifs as debate rockets into our sterns a half century later during the period of the 1960s, otherwise hallmarking the emergence of the Westbury Rebel world management (albeit not yet recognized by anyone on TV as the NEXT Great Generation) era.

If at least not ending that intellect’s or lack of’s most compellingly crippling influences, for a while (during the second part of the second Iraq War), interpretations of American twenty-first century combatant shortfalls has been restricted to disclosure of things like spelling badly. For example, instead of correlating, as done to Congress in 1971, the American veteran to the thirteenth century Mongols led by Genghis Khan and his boys, which is pretty heady stuff (given the Khans’' killing of about forty million folks plus all the wildlife and domesticateds on the various continents; which is equal, given population trends analysis, to about 1,000,000,000,000 [I think that number of zeros represents a trillion] dead extrapolated to the twentieth century, noting also which is hard to do in that the globe all total, meaning to count the live persons, only had a smidgeon of that many residents during our deployment in Vietnam — and not even counting either the animal wildlife and domesticateds) during that earlier period in the world of hysteria-promulgating management doctrine, John Kerry, an always (in my view) foot-in-mouth overly hyperbolic speaking politician from Massachusetts (and whom I believe thinks he is actually reincarnated from nineteenth century eastern European academia as the first introspective Zarathustrian), ridiculed instead of the American combat veteran’s core ontological components like sexual functionality, only their educational limitations. While speaking to an audience of Massachusetts youth, the senator explained to them that if they didn't study hard they'd end up serving with the alleged (that is, our beloved aggressives, thanks be) "dummies" in the IED proliferated front lines of one of our foreign wars. That attempt at change from virtually all 1960s-1970s focus on our sexual and inner hostiality- (new word parodying inner hostility; and found in Part III of this op-ed) causing irregularities, I think showed progress.

Alas, the moratorium on use by the Left of the shaming device against returning combatants did not last long. The new leftist managed department of Homeland Security, when warning Americans about the dangers of terrorism, and particularly the threats by those who target veterans to encourage them to join up with a particular anti-something-or-other cause, classified the poor returning Iraqi veterans here in America as security risks. Then shaming, thanks to the addition of Islamic kinds of thinking, but euphemized as "workplace violence" by their Leftist protectors, became in 2009 more brutal with and through applications of outright murder and pogroms of and against those who served in the military: referring to the Fort Hood jihad-inspired massacre of unarmed innocents by an American Islamist military psychiatrist shouting "Allahu Akbar" and the heinous murder of a US Army veteran at a recruiter’s office in Arkansas.

But things lightened up in 2012 with only the declination by an Iraqi War protestor to rent an apartment to an one hundred percent combat disabled American veteran, because he WAS one, in Boston, Massachusetts. Showing more coming home-strength of character than did I in 1968, that veteran sued those folks for prejudicial renting, which is illegal in that great state. I truly admire that fellow as when asked during two 1968 job interviews if "killing children in Vietnam made me feel more like a man," I just went home and removed from my resume what before I had been most proud of — the description of my Marine Corps advancements through performance of my duties when I was otherwise pretty much scared nearly to death. And I quickly got smart enough at parties to stop telling my friends who'd just graduated from the university, or who were still hanging out there, where I'd been for the past four years.

And, always thanks much for and to the apparently non formally academe-influenced, albeit in my view more artfully (as in less intellectually contaminated) created women of California, and who thus were admirably dedicated to helping us prospectively psychosexual-based aggressives work out of that post combat social quagmire referenced by history as the Sixties, before heading back to the rest of civilization known to us as America. True — and even better than that, some of the finest representatives of the performing arts, that is, of being feminine — patriots! They didn't seem to care about the theoretical extension of America's Manifest Destiny of the mid-to-late "Atlantic-to-the-Pacific" motto-driven nineteenth century to the broader foreign affairs-focused world of the twentieth. But they DID care about us. Had it not been for that particular constituency, we returners would probably have had a hard time of it figuring out what was going on: meaning how we left one society and came back to another that posited, as am viewing this issue from hindsight a half century later — apparently both badly and goodly for us — that sex had become everything.

At least, though, that's better than the Athenians' (comparing to those fairly ancients because most studies of democratic civilizations' conduct during war begin with a look to the Peloponnese [Sparta — but not as in USC's reformed version] invasion of Attica-Athens) behaved under war invasion-stress conditions (431BC to 404BC, and then eventually on to that Hellenic civil war-like 394BC final ending), eventually cannibalizing their moral and just about all civil integrities, and pretty much themselves as well, sometimes literally speaking. The salient idea became "Get what you can, while you can." Hmmm . . . but then, we didn't have to contend with the plague; and although President Kennedy had some rhetorically-based leadership skills, his predecessor and follow-ups, respectively, D.D. Eisenhower, and then Presidents Johnson, Nixon and particularly Gerald Ford, were no Pericles.

There is the explanation of how we all (again West Civ) got so confused for a while during the 1960s and their aftermath occurring over the rest of the twentieth century. All of this attack upon the American core consciousness came to us courtesy of and thanks be to Freud's extrapolated confusions about women, the invention of the shaming device, and their exploitations by some probably fast-thinking PPs hiding out in the New Left quadrant of and ever metastasizing blight upon our youth-transforming advanced- (post K-12) -by-a trillion dollar taxpayer supported education industry.

The Bangor Maine Solution for America

Please let me express a knowledgeable opinion on a correlate subject regarding morale management of the American Armed Forces – combat veterans. As an example of brilliance of the common man’s and woman’s capacities to bring meaning through managerial justice to the world, the wholly volunteer “Welcoming Home” committee, which was / is a bunch of really old (more so than even me) but nevertheless extremely stalwart seniors-people, reentry point at Bangor, Maine, for both single and multiple tour combatants from this last decade of war has done more for countering the New Left’s strategic exploitation of the concept of PTSD’s usually under-the-radar as they would say deleterious psychic influences on our capabilities to fight (by undermining troop morale) than all the billions spent by both the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs medical psych departments and officer training war colleges during the comparable periods. The thesis, which I’ve posited for about forty years and which has now been supported in the literature, is that combat trauma retains in the molecular substrate of the existential identity elements of memory, getting harbored, at least first, in the (again) under-the-conscious-radar region known as the mossy fibers of the hippocampus. Such retention and then when even more strained by strategic attempts through political contrivance to shame such affected people, for example by dumping the earlier referenced intrapsychic analysis of the referenced troops’ inner shortfalls upon the battle weary combatant-returnees, or worse while they were still in theater or getting ready to go there, reduces even further morale as it manifests both individually and in mass. That individual and systemic trauma-compounding derogation is correlated directly and routinely to the willingness to fight, much less die, for a cause, in this instance its being defense of our definition of the natural individual identities and freedom to be that way. (Addressing that definitional process as it occurred throughout America’s history is the subject of Part III of this essay.) That presumes, of course, that obliteration of the people of the World Trade Center in New York City and its heroic emergency responders, the Pentagon’s employees a little further south, and those other people who died in that field in Pennsylvania while just trying to ride to somewhere in an airplane in order to get from one place to another, are appropriate examples of infringing impingements upon freedom.

Hence, that Bangor model of focused, unabridged and blatantly ostentatious caring, as now also exemplified by unknown, as in humble, Americans who individually express their love to the American veteran in the public and private arenas of the heartland, has countered the protestors’ purposefully directed and thus contrived shaming model. In the process, those extraordinary few Maine citizens have almost by themselves given this country more strength for defending itself than has all that has gone before by the war beaurocracy. That constructive influence from the now growing grassroots of the civilization then counters those antagonists’ referenced efforts to destroy the capacities of the polity to protect itself. Thanks be for and to the wonderment, brilliance and grace of the individual American, led demonstrably in this instance from, by and with just a handful of senior citizen caring geniuses in Bangor, Maine. I hope somebody commissions Glenna Goodacre, the sculptress who did the nurses monument at the Vietnam Memorial, to do a bronze of those senior citizens who contributed that work, and then plant that statue either at the front of that Maine airport, or at the next memorial to be built for the men and women who fought America’s longest war, albeit it may get a little bit longer given this adversary’s longevity in both the battle and conniving arenas.

Honesty vs. Dishonesty During Decision Making and Debate

Socrates’, albeit very valuable method for implementing change during tough times, could and would have its ups and downs when not used correctly or otherwise when purposefully abused, to wit, when administered to destroy an adversary’s (our, for example) society from within, as at least so said and say Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Giapism, and Muslim Brotherhoodism. A, and which I opine here is “the” key to the work-out of that mistake or -intendedly defaming and thus decimation-of-will application, or failed design in the first place, would take us back to basics: Socrates’ adherence to honesty. Without it, and given the malignantly untoward (in the minimum) usages by either thoughtful adversaries, not-so-deep-thinking morons, or death-wishing Stockholm Syndrome (see below) affected terrifieds, debate would be and is turned into two outcomes, both of them bad, and with the second one being worse than that.Honesty or No, Guerrilla Warfare, and Ten F Management's combination with Systemic Stockhom Syndrome's (SSS's) Effects on the Capacity to Defend a Nation or other Civilization

The first and only being a cumbersome outcome of dishonesty used during otherwise thought to be legitimate debate is Ten-F(2) management by and of the society that was trying to conduct the business of defending itself and its peoples against the psychopath, in the most recently referenced homicidally inclined ones. “Ten F” refers to flake-to-fake, fluff-to-frivolity, flim-to-flammed, fopped-to-fooled, and fraud-to-fecked. (To mean what it sounds like).

The purpose of Ten F management interpretations is to allow Etiotropically-focused managers like myself, to call the opposition bad names, but while appearing to be erudite. Etiotropic trauma management influences on management decision making tends to require the applying manager to see the big views at conflict, and thus not engage in shallow expressions of otherwise natural feelings of anger when confronting folks (other managers) holding different perspectives of what we are all doing here. So Ten F is an Etiotropically-focused manager's way of expressing, as does the aggressives on the other sides of thinking conflicting matters through, bad thoughts about his or her competition's serious lack of brain usage.

One of the operational attributes of Ten F is that it allows for disassemblance into incremental applications of its modifiers, depending on need. For example, someone may only apply two Fs at a time to describe a particular argument or its limited methodology; referring to someone who only disseminates as a flake, which then denigrates all the way to a full out fake proposition. On the other end of the continuum of analysis of a competitor's system of argumentation, he or she might qualify for all ten of the F-word descriptions. Hence, if someone has been deemed to be a nearly, that is, or fully Ten F, then his or her credibility as a debater has been substantially challenged; at least interpreted as fairly unreliable by the masses, and again most notably by Etiotropic trauma managers as a means of reframing the opposition into intellectual competitive unworthiness.

Although Ten F management permeates the culture at different intervals, in this theme’s application, Ten F presents increasingly as a systemic managerial consequence of a traumatized and re-traumatized people, its citizenry assaulted by horror and adaptive radical behaviors, and particularly as caused by that which flows back into the society’s public from their unattended, due to misfeasance and narrowness of management's perspectives, returning injured defenders. Ten F is particularly applicable to such managers who, for political purposes, exploit a people's pain.

(2)Albeit neither named as such nor consistent in longer-term presentments within Western civilization, Ten F management has always been around; it comes out of a natural propensity to think up cognitive rationales (quick cortex activity) for explaining and mitigating a loss that attends traumatic events. Some observers of the debate scene refer to this element of thought synonomously as "kneejerk." This application of the cortex-alone-kinds-of-thinking is often, too, an initial function of radical and rapid (except as, say, in the case of disease which creates the traumatic condition over an extended period) change in reality maintained at existential elements of identity.

"Existential" in this usage refers to much deeper stuff than the just referenced "quick cognitive" think ups. "Deep stuff" refers to the abrogation by an external force (the traumatic event) upon and to, thus enjoining, the continuity of a particular core belief, image, value or other aspect of fundamental reality. These are basic — as in central to the continuation of one's functioning — elements of thought, which are all stored (neuromolecularly) in that memory which underpins existence. So when you have a contradiction, or related series of them, to one or more of those pillars of being, as occurs during exposure to a traumatic event, the old reality is made extinct (which actually is a de rigueur, and often lengthy time-sensitive process) within the synaptic traces which contain the eventually to be former memory (neuronal substrate).

That "extinction" manifest psychologically, as also in behaviorally, as loss of the core self (the primary values, beliefs, images and other realities that contribute to the ongoingness of the individual organism, its most intimate individual (between two persons) relationships that comprise it's basic associations, and those that make up its larger system hallmarked by multiple relationships, such as a team, or other unit like a family, company, school, community, society or nation as a whole. Reconciling loss at the core is with good cause painful work, which apparent unhappiness is actually also needed by the substrate, as its remedy-providing pain source — the HAPA (Hypothalymous-to Adrenal Cortical-to-Pituitary Axis) or also termed "stress" response has some important functions for that resolution. Where immediate survival is facilitated by HAPA (referring to the behavioral decision regarding fight-or-flight), the other useful benefit has to do with molecular, as in the essence of memory, unlearning and relearning. That is, the neuroendocrine facilitated chemicals (say for example the Noradrenergic and Opioid system components hyped during the response and thus initiated by HAPA) produce or otherwise engender the synaptic or so called neuromolecular plasticity responsible for synaptic change.

"Plasticity" refers to the modulation of new synaptic formation and expansion of capacity of what is already constructed (pre existing synapses add additional membranic and synaptic cleft development for greater neurotransmitter passaging, which is the heart of storage of learning in memory), which therefore then provides for extinction of the old reality maintained in memory and inclusion of the generation of the synapses needed to house the new values, beliefs, images and other realities that make up for those lost. The organism is returned to ongoing status. The brain is integrating the change, which integration is argued to be phylogenetic in its development.

Incidentally, that process needs to and should be facilitated (because it makes it easier and more readily completable) by another, as in caring, person who shares the pain at its necessary depth; that is, whatever is right for the one doing the sharing.This phylogenetically conceived and orchestrated brain integration process is how the organism, along with the culture in which it is part, unlearns what it used to be pre trauma, learns anew now in the post trauma world, and gets better — meaning to return to adequate decision making and the conduct of life, and which may include a contribution to collective existence (as in families, teams, organizations like work environments, and then maybe even politics of that which organizes and operates communities).

A problem for America and the West has developed over the past half century because of their professional organizations' responses to the reference extinction phenomenon; they are interferring with it, mostly because they've concluded that it is unnecessary. There was a time when we proceeded through the process as natually as we could, that is, without a lot of formal interference. For example, some church-helping models, friends, neighbors and family interactions facilitated the grief attending change otherwise experienced as destructive. But beginning at the near middle of the twentieth century, several professional responses, to include pharmacologies for altering or otherwise mollifying the stress (HAPA) response, combined with an increasing use of socially applied medicators (illegal drug and legal alcohol use) altered how we addressed the brain integration process referenced in the previous paragraphs.

One of those variables that interferes most dramatically with the referenced brain integration activity at the existential level is the increased use by professionals, governments and self-helpers of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). It works didactically, which fits well with television talk-show and related helping styled entertainment. Experts tell the affected in classrooms, CB-based therapy sessions, in books and magazine articles, and on TV how their thinkings are, say, deranged, or if that is too much, then at least meaning dysfunctional; and then how to fix that problem. All of this happens predominantly right up there in the cortex which is what and where people defend themselves in the first and even-to-often hysterical instance, also referenced above. The "hysterics" come from — to mean most usually occur — the incongruous or fractured liaison between that rational-to-rationalizing development ongoing in the abstract and the extinction activities occurring consequent of and subsequent to the traumatic event. Concommitantly, either professionally prescribed medications, social use of alcohol and other drugs, some illegal, etc., mitigate the stress experience produced by the also earlier referenced HAPA. Thereafter, people affected by loss and particularly profound ones are not facilitated to address otherwise natural brain reintegration at the so called here deeper existential levels harbored in the ongoings of the extinction activity. It is most likely occurring in the mossy fibers of the hippocampus and in conjunction with what is often considered the Amygdala (emotion generated in response to the change and from within the lymbic system), which is a whole different place than the more light weight rational cognitive-turned-hysterical goings-on in the cortex.

Moreover, the collasum has been theorized to separate bunches of that activity, particularly that which pertains to the synaptic extinction of the pre trauma identity into conscious and unconscious states. Rational cognitive (cortex) activity appears to provide controls from the conscious side of the collasum. Much of the extinction effort is harbored in the unconscious, which apparently has, due to the incapacitation that attends grief, good reason from remaining much of the time hidden from the trauma-affected's conscious view. The human consciousness, suffers a split, sometimes clinically titled dissociation, where the affected individual, and often entire masses suffering the same, are pitted against itsef / themselves.

Concentrating briefly on the rational cognitive interlopers imposing their address of others' emotional pain, there's even a feel-good model entitled Rational Emotive Therapy (RET) that strengthens the CBT effort. In RET, one is taught that he or she can consciously change one's feelings (those that are usually painful) by changing one's rational and cognitive (providing for conscious thought and behavioral control) perspective. The addage: change the view related to cause and get rid of the pain.

And that does work for at least a little while, and with lots of people, particularly those watching and learning these tricks on TV, or in self-help session, or at a government educational seance. Do enough of that often called psycho-education activity with enough mass audiences, reinforce it with government facilitation and CBT based leadership, pour in some exogenously provided psychotropic mollifiers, and you've got a lot of people who believe at some level that they are ok. But in reality they are not, and they are NOT in this civilization in mass.

While the CBTers are developing chants, aphorisms, tropes and speaking-to-mirror positive hypnotic affirmations that hold the rational cognitive defensive abstractions together, the extinction process down below is carrying on, making such individuals and their groups, respectively, individually and collectively nuts. Denial of painful realities and the intellectual interference with the decision making a society needs to engage at non superficial levels, as is engineered by the CBT thought model now permeating the West and conjointly administered by the professional, to include medicating, community which sells the approach (in order to make the public more manageable), and the government folks who exploit that ease of manageability. To compensate for this mess, everybody involved, including those hired to run the civilization, incorporates the Ten F system of both self and collective management.

People who use the Ten F thought system think everything is ok. They also blame what finally affects them in the frontal lobe (where conscious management of the consciousness is supposed to take place), which occurs pretty much a little above right between the eyes, if they don't get sent off first by a HPP, as always being the fault of something weird, as in seemingly non-sensical, and in particular pertaining to the true cause — the homicidal psychopath, or some derivative, thereof, like the psychopath's organization which mirrors the PP's psychology. And worse than that, the split caused by application of the interferring talking and pain medicating variable makes its victims or targets, whichever conceptualization you prefer, on the one hand try to figure all this out, and on the other work very hard — but as if they are already mired in Hades (they can never find the answers until another and consequent catastrophe occurs) — at not doing so.

Honesty, truth seeking or telling, or any manifestation of a dialogue that threatens to address the underlying, or even another way of saying it overarching causes of destructive change, is the bête noire of both ten F management and the individual-to-collective split that underpins it. Hence, and for example, conversations that address central causes of violence, or whatever is creating the individual and systemic changes and the management modalities that support the delusion, are themselves changed, retooled, and reconfigured to prevent discovery of and thus maintain in perpetuity the altered individual and collective consciousness. Moreover, so called real (as in straighforward) human connectedness, which gravitates toward intimacy that evokes and demands honesty in relationships, also threatens both the referenced split and the management apparatus that makes it extant. Failures to impose or otherwise achieve such honesty within a society exacerbate not just the consciousness's division, but the more chaotic interchange of the rational cognitive abstractions. They become not just individual, but collective hysterics. People, societies, and civilizations are transformed into mobs; sometimes they are impenetrably placid (complacent), and others actively bloodthirsty.

Although Ten F management, which interplays both centrifugally and centripetally within the referenced hysterics, is represented by numerous examples; the primarily most dramatically affected and pertinent (because of the danger not just to the individual but to a society) to this story presents as a systemic, again for emphasis, hysterical, manifestation of the earlier referenced Stockholm Syndrome. In this (my) interpretation of Ms. Philip’s upsidedownism (2010), elements of the free society turn on itself, supporting the invading PP’s goals which most always include disintegration of the polity in its entirety, not just fixing its shortfalls. Death Orders: The Vanguard of Modern Terrorism in Revolutionary Russiaby Anna Geifman (2010) adds scholarly exegete of ideolgical and methodological roles of SS as a pathological mainstay - support of the use of killing as a politic-advancing device. And showing original thought taken from our lab work, the earlier and really big hitter on this SSS (systemic Stockholm Syndrome) perspective was, of course, me: Guerrilla Warfare’s (and Terrorism’s) Pathogenesis and Cure; Assuming the practical application to Combat Trauma of Strategic ETM TRT (1991-2011), and Strategic Human Ontological Management (SHOM—1992-2012).

Where the first works interpret the systemic self-destructive process as existing, that is, a problem to be solved least it contribute to the overturn of WC, I assumed from the beginning (thirty years ago) that everybody already understood that it did (big mistake). For me, however, I thought it was most important to show how to undo SSS, which I have demonstrated in both practice and theory for quite a while, now in 2012. Where in those past periods I wrote to professionals only (another big mistake), I'll do it again for you publics in the next Part V essay to this series. It is entitled "Turn the World Right Side Up: Theory and Application for Depowering Psychopaths and the National to International Institutions They Manage;" and it shows how to undermine both the trauma-caused hysterics and subsequent and consequent Ten F management model which can catapult an entire civilization into self destruction.

There won't be any TV fix for this situation. It is the same CBT, RET and pharmacological methods, augmented with massive applications of social drug use, that got us into the mess. No. Using those things against this encroachment by the inane is proverbially like saying to brer Rabbit that you are going to throw him into the briar patch; or for emphasis, throwing bbs as ammunition against the hide of the local croccodile. The individual and collective psychopathology holding Ten F and its underlying split consciousness together is serious business. You can't just tell those so affected folks to be honest, or that telling the truth is good for them; that is, that they can learn better.

But something natural IS happening as a counter, which I'll consider a little later (below). And of course, I have a theory and plan (referenced in the previous paragraph) for righting this massive wrong.

Simplifying (for those of you who can't wait for the solution part of this otherwise possibly depressing essay) the how-to-fix-it theory presented in the referenced Turn the World Rightside Up work (SHOM) referenced above, the idea is to strategically, as in incrementally and orderly within the guidelines established therein, reverse the core damage done by PPs to the most directly affected targets. That activity can be analogized to the work of Israel's SAKA, whose members reconstruct the bodies of the bombing and other killed victims so that in compliance with that group's traditions, they can be sent on their spiritual ways. When applying that idea to trauma management using the Etiotropic approach, which is structurally existential (as antithetical to Behavioral), hence rigorously honest, the goal is to restore identity of the immediate survivors. Restoring identity incrementally, that is, one person at a time, does several things at once and sometimes in sequela. For example, the action restores individual and systemic will to continue to exist (fight) and pulls the plug on trauma pain caused social hysteria, which is the fuel that sustains SSSers and the Ten F system of self-destruction management. Without it, they, referring to the SSSers and Ten Fers as well, then, "Like old soldiers, just fade away."

Continuing with another example of SSS engineered by the principal invader herein, New Left goals of protest are to see the individually-based system described in and protected by the American Bill of Rights burned to the ground; and out of its ashes roused something that nobody has yet defined, given that mandated social-utopianism lost its practical exemplification modality appeal to logic when the Soviet Union collapsed during our time, and the Chinese Peoples’ Republic shortly thereafter gave permission to Mandarin andCantonese film corporations to start making individually-, not only -based, but even human ontology-celebrating movies. “Ocean Heaven” provides an example. Their depictions of those folks 1906-1911 revolution against the various coming-and-going monarchies and economic control model's invasion by the British, supported by people running around quoting Lincoln and Jefferson (two famous Americans) have turned Uncle Mayo’s Great Leap Forwarders on their philosophical and ideological butts. Now that that human essence-focusing genie has been let out of that particular bottle, is going to be difficult for their Politburo to fit or otherwise ever squeeze it back in. But I guess that's what happens when a single student with nothing but his body stands down a Peoples Army's pretty good sized tank (column) on its way into nothing less than Tianamen Square on global TV.

From the Anti-terrorist Fighter's Perspective: The Case for Honesty During Protest

The worst and second consequence is harder to look at squarely. Despite an antiwar protest’s apparent veracity, or not, somebody on our side is going to die directly because of it. A guerrilla on the other team does not have to win, meaning to be the last one standing, in an ambush or seemingly suicidal application of his or her willingness to go that way. He or she only needs to show up in order to maintain itself on top in the polls. That event then triggers rippling waves of shock and disheartenment in the free speaking zone back home. Following a short and healthily but not always, if rarely, long-lasting anger-induced-to-fight-back-caused spike upward on the peoples’ morale graph, which is charted on the head terrorist’s or guerilla’s laptop, targets’ will-to-fight declines significantly, which is the traumatizing terrorists’ objective.

They, referring again to the terrorist leadership, are said (by me as an anti-guerilla warfare trainer of American counter terrorism combatants before Navy Seals were shown to use real-like weapons in movies; not just underwater rubberband powered spear guns) to be rolling in their isles with laughter ─ while offering appreciation prayers to whatever deity that leads them ─ when Western television turns itself into an anger-management course, demonstrating didactically for the mass controllables how to stuff their otherwise legitimate experiences of outrage, and replace them with fallbacks on their more meditative selves, least they not fully understand the meaning of the original heinous events causing the up- and then deep down-ticks in the attackees’ morale. Now with the help of TV philosophers and CBT- (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) –oriented psychotherapists-styled commentators, media leaders are turning the otherwise only-spiking-downer component from blips into trends on the victim morale graph’s scale. Hierarchically implemented masses-emotion-control models, of which CBT is the best example, notoriously function victimizationalizingly, turning entire publics into malleable, that is, without adequate ─ “adequate” means replete with all emotional circuitry, particularly including the big motivating feelings-driving engines of fear and anger connected to on-go ─ defense against repeated bombardment by those who would use the violence-implementation-for-political gain model.

So guerrilla-styled terrorists just keep coming back no matter how many of themselves get put away into the infinite during their administrations. Concomitantly, TV just keeps saving us from our emotional selves, that is, so that we are made pacified-victim-ready for another pounding. For bucking that system of mass denial, thanks be to Darryl Worley for his song, “Have You Forgotten?” and the only guy in Europe, Geert Wilders, for having the guts to reference the lyrics to the American people in a speech honoring the Fallen at Ground Zero.

Like Giap reasoned over two wars and close to thirty years, the expert terrorist or guerrilla (or asymmetricism-inducer?) then is sustained with home grown or at least exogenously facilitated protests against, say, the Americans’ (usually, but any free society will do) guys and women the guerrilla or terrorist is meeting in and on the battlefield. Pretty simple, one would think, albeit the psychopath’s strategy goes, at least consciously, unnoticed by and even due to the unconsciously but nevertheless dynamic terrorist-supporting diversionary antics of Stockholm Syndrome-affecteds, which is why it is called a syndrome. Unknowingly gobbling one’s self up is thought to be irrational, in many considerations. Doing it consciously is just believed to be an example of a society’s committing suicide, which then give psycho-history inquisitives something to study for several millennia.

Now for the problem, which despite G. Herbert Walker Bush's declar-excl-amation at the conclusion of the 1991 one-hundred-hour-long Gulf War; "We've finally ended (or otherwise overcome) that 'Vietnam thing'!"; I'm sorry, but it was not over, despite the exuberance felt by that victory. Rather the locus of that unresolved memory as it pervades the consciousness with difficulty stems from something a little deeper than win or lose tallies exemplified in and by sports competitions where a protagonist just pronounces that “We are back on top!” Here next, in contrast and instead, is the source of that lingering downer.

Even when antiwar debate is honest, for example, when a protestor takes to the streets expressing the view that the majority’s war policy is wrong and that he or she wants to end what is believed an irrational sacrifice of our young men and women who defend us, or to stop the killing of so-called (not by me) collateralized (to me they presented as horribly deceased innocent civilian human beings no matter who killed them) in the battle theater, our fighter dies, despite how painful it is to us all, supporting something good; it is a free world that is built on the discovery and honoring of truth, which when prevailing gives both sides the opportunity to work through, maybe even resolve, their differences without harming a lot of other folks. Because of that prospective positive for our neighbors, and even humankind as a whole, we, or at least many of us fighters and even some of the families, and a few of the surviving innocents can live with that loss; albeit all death, and no matter application of cognitive-based objectification and emotion control techniques, and just plain old also ancient Stoicism philosophy, all of which psychological defensive mechanisms are sometimes beneficial in the near term, in the end, meaning over the long-term, always bring hard mental times for those involved, but with the deeper and more honorable experience that those times are eventually to be reconcilable.

From the Anti-terrorist Fighter's Perspective: The Long-term Effects of Dishonesty During Protest

In contrast, when the debate is built on dishonesty, for example, when a person takes to the streets or the publication circuit during war for the purpose of surreptitiously using the argument in order to change the governing structure to say either a statis-commanded social- or theocratic-, as opposed to the constitutionally authorized individually-based one, we’re not just talking fraud, treason and worse, impoliteness, but a reckless disregard for and exploitation of the truth. Thereafter, subsequent terror-guerrilla-caused maiming and endings of those men and women’s lives in the field all occur atrociously; meaning misrepresentation during protest in the free zone protected by our treasure, the men and women who follow the particular majority’s directions and fight for us, is an atrocity equal to intent to murder, and murder itself.

And that ravaging will undermine a good surviving fighter’s conscience such that unlike the first influence of honest protest, the destruction and its attendant decimation of the psyche are not so easy to assimilate. When those around you die because of dishonesty by one’s own citizenry, or their crossover lookalikes, hostile immigrants or not, the hurt goes deeper, and is experienced over both the near and long terms as if there is no end to it. It is akin to how survivors of homicide victims feel when they’ve lost a loved one to intendedly extraordinary cruelty and obscene meanness.

For preaching-based (Cognitive Behaviorism-based) helpers who don't know better, but who would like to, that kind of hurt doesn’t respond to catchy phrases and upbeat admonitions (such as): “It’s time to let go!;" "Get over it!;" "Get on with life!;" "That’s water under the bridge!;” "What's in the past has passed, and should stay there!" or “Move on from past memories!” It does, however, when your appreciation for such persons is expressed existentially with care. "Existentially" consolidated into a helpful (simplifying) cliche that the masses can use for identifying when one is doing it right means that instead of trying to cognitively control with frontal lobe activity (as opposed to say reaching down — as in with more difficulty — past the collasum's obfuscating influences upon the hippocampus and amygdala's simultaneous changes subsequent to traumatic events) loss processing's naturally unconscious goings-on, you know you're getting somewhere productive when the trauma and loss eventually "let you go." That often comes epiphanilogically, as in an experience that seems bigger than the one having it. In the old days, before the advent of us seculars, people called that a spiritual happening.

In any case, and back for emphasis to the other side of the contrast, when truth undergirds the debate on all sides, then that well of loss caused by death of an associate, a defender of all that is good in this universe, always has a bottom from which to rise. Albeit it may and most often does take some serious time and understanding by loved ones, not to mention less interference from the hystericallity brigade (admonisioners of diversionary abstractions — focus-changing arguments — who are usually on drugs, to also include heavy drinkers) to complete the reconciliation.

How to Differentiate

How do we determine a dishonest from honest debate presentation? Simple. If the side from the debating strategist doesn't allow application of the same dedication in its rules for truth-telling or whatever else they are spinning; for example, if the debater proselytizing the competing ideological and methodological domains would be sent into Valhalla for criticizing on their own ground (as in "Muslim lands" — everthing already conquered into submission by Dar al Islam, or within control of the Marxist apperatchik, or the political controls for implementing pre reformation Catholicism, taking only three but most ostensible examples) that other side's management personages and structure, then there is something hypocritical going on. Turn them off, or get rid of them, but not as does the Mafia silence such personages. Hypocriticalness is always a sure sign that something may be askew.

Usually unbeknownst, and referenced here as a sermonic parenthetical, to its administrators, an additionalphenomenon necessitates noting. That is, the institutionalizing of dishonesty as a management modality also inevitably assures failure of the cause for which that thought model advocates. And even more tellingly than that, it demonstrates its design and construction fissures, which are indications of incongruous thinking most usually hidden in the first place. Examples of misapplications, which again for emphasis means forgetting about the importance of, or just not purposefully administering it, Socrates’ honesty component of debate and protest, would include some of the works (political pamphlet defamations of Adams and by Hamilton who was argued by the former to be in need of long-term residential care) of Hamilton and Jefferson's libeling proxy secret publishing company) here in America during its first elections, which is said (by me) to have set the tone for lying during politics (Abigail Adams ended her long-standing relationship with Jefferson over the manipulative slander - see McCullough's work on this shameful conduct) which sort of led for a while to its becoming an accepted norm; Muhammad’s purported seventh century proclamation in the Al Hadith that “War was / is deceit”, thus to win or otherwise advance Allah’s will, lying (or speaking Arabically through al taqiyya) was not just ok, but required for success; Lenin’s always infamous “useful idiots” expression connoting the value of exploiting stupid or maybe more fairly said narrowly-focused, but almost certainly Stockholm Syndrome-affected academes and journalists now applying the Hadleyville problem solving management model to and in our educational systems; and pretty much anybody, as did Nietzsche or Machiavelli, who’ve asserted that attainment of power or winning is more valuable than achieving graduation, meaning ongoing Forwardism, with truth. And thanks be always to the Fuhrer’s leading the way in such matters with his expression “I feel so fortunate to have lived in a period when people didn’t think.”

How's this Going to Turn Out and Why?

Although this differing (from its originator, Socrates) use of argument, debate and protest unattended by the conscientious application of truth would encumber the four part and developing Westbury model, it would over the long term make any cause, and particularly that being advanced by any subsequent Ten F management, unworthy. The civilization lesson being learned, albeit fairly gradually: if one has to lie while trying to advance one’s cause during protest, despite the exhortations by short-term imposing-with-the-intent-to-become conquerors, the cause isn't worth it regardless of what it is. That / this battle is still being fought in the social management arenas that continue today to honor Socrates’s debate and protest contribution. In the end, I opine that truth and honesty will win out, validating the initial Socratic, and thus this past century’s Westbury Rebel approaches.

The ground is shaking, dark storm clouds are rolling in to our sky, and I hear crescendo-level clamoring. It feels, and it sounds to me like vociferous objection: it may be a, or even your, jaded disbelief in the capacity of the human consciousness to learn to be honest and to be that way with steadfast defense of truth at all costs, sorta like Socrates, but hopefully not always that extreme in its physical consequences. However, here’s proof demonstrating where you would be wrong, and of course better than that, where I am right. Any society, which after only fifty years can spontaneously learn from and through the heart of its individual citizenry to say in the second decade of the twenty-first century to a once strategically calumnized Vietnam veteran ─ and in the middle of a restaurant or grocery store in Paducah, Kentucky, or Forrest City, Arkansas, or Charleston, South Carolina, or Sallisaw, Oklahoma, or Spokane, Washington, or Billings, Montana, or Sioux Falls, South Dakota, or Austin, Texas, or Richmond, Virginia, or Nashville, Tennessee, and maybe even some day in Boston, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California ─ “Thank you for your service to us. We appreciate and love you and your brothers and sisters for what you did for our country.” can and will also learn the importance of honesty and the necessity of its defense when conveyed in the expressions of all arguments pertaining to the living or dying of those who would defend us by following the dictates of the majority in its administration of our constitutions. Moreover, it takes great courage to face down the collective when it goes hysterical, and particularly when driven that way by PPs having fun; meaning trying to use the resulting pain from their manipulations for overthrow of in this case, individual freedom, as did those comprising the New Left during the Vietnam War. The free citizens of America have individually expressed, and still do every day throughout the heartland, those caring and respectful sentiments; and with them, these free people, who are the deep basis of America and what remains of a free Western civilization, made this country and its wider world, and its mostly grateful dependents whole.

That individualized people, imbued by their core goodnesses, which always derive from those capacities spawned and then reinvigorated by profound free thought, the capacity for conscientious meditation, and solemn prayer with which to find the depths of their whether Hellenic, Hebraic or Oriental souls, which greater intelligence always speaks upwardly to the more cerebral decision making aspects inherent when effectuating themselves, will know the importance of asserting truth over power in the debates pertaining to the conduct of their affairs, the management of their differences, and in determining the contribution they make now and forevermore to this civilization, and to the world where need be. That intellectual evolution; which in its naturalness exceeds the manipulative and always deleterious power of the sellers ─ management propagandists like a Goebbels, Molotov, Fonda and Qaradawi ─ of nihilism-underpinned, that is, because none of their command-based and PP-organized programs have ever worked, is one of the biggest parts of what being a Westbury Rebel is all about. Its classes of 1962-1965 have met that responsibility, that is, engaged that challenge, done that job, well!

His Holiness Faces Up; or at least Faces his Peoples Up

Sometimes, isn’t it truly interesting how things work out, or sometimes don't seem to? At its core, that finely peaceful epistemology that Siddhartha started so long ago, it's primary if only intent being to end human emotional pain and suffering ─ he didn’t design his approach to coping with life as a world takeover and domination program as do organizational-based and mostly secular non-confident Pacifists running today’s (since the 1960s) peace movements ─ has since the mid twentieth century been faced with the identical and always perplexing conundrum that also happened to have influenced the people of the southern states of America in 1861, and then a hundred years later the entire American nation in its second civil war. It, being about individualism versus, again nihilistically-based, socialism, started anew (noting the philosophical and methodological changes attending the W. Wilson and F. Roosevelt periods, and getting another run now) in the 1960s, but with the primary blood and carnage — one of the most debilitatingly tragic costs of freedom — being manifested in Vietnam. Using the Buddhists in this essay, because as a rule they are very honest people who are dedicated to their modality, as an example of what’s wrong now, his Fourteenth Holiness, hopefully having learned something practical about serving night watch duty in a Marine-styled fighting hole with that PFC, me, (described in "Part III" of this series, "The Good Rebel in Most of Us" which supports this summary) has to figure out how to merge his peace-at-all-costs epistemology comprised of Buddhism’s very legitimate approach to confident Pacifism (described in the next heading / chapter) with the already-started in 1950 and accelerated in 1959 extinction of the group of people, Tibetans, he manages.

That is what is happening to those inherently nice and even sweet folks. According to some documentations, they've already lost a million of their initial seven. Their Chinese masters, clearly not raised on Mandarin and Cantonese movies, and who like most masters pretty much think they know what they are doing — in this example killing Tibetans in mass in order to save them from that nasty old feudalism-wrapped-in-peace-cloth, otherwise observed by the shorter guy's politburo to be one of Marx's "opiates for the masses" — are destroying those peoples in their entirety. In fairness to the Chinese, please be sure to understand and know that these masters were and are not only doing this killing altruistically; they have a practical side. Tibet and those high mountains provide China’s protection on the entire left and northwest flanks against the Moguls – Mughals – active Islamists, Persians, some constantly and traditionally thought to be harmless Ganges River-bathing Indians (unless they get fired-up about something like being taken over by some far-off former desert Bedouins), a few Tatars (what’s a “Tatar”? (3)) and also maybe even some more Western-oriented derivations of Europeans whenever those prospective and once real aggressors might become active, again. Unlike those of us operating in more simpler modes of just trying to figure things out while maybe watching a television show about singing, shopping or going to Tango lessons, Masters are always thinking profoundly-intensely abstractly, somewhat as do serious chess players and some peoples of the arts and entertainment, to include a few of journalism’s media managers.

(3)Footnoting, a Tatar (not like in "Tater," which is a derivative of “potato”) is a group of Russians who began marauding in conjunction with the Kahn's thirteenth century Mongols. They initiated those activities just on the other side of the boundaries at the top of China. The merged warriors then worked their way westward in that and the fourteenth century to show up in both central and western Russia, which put the force northwest of the big empire from which they had been northern neighbors in the first place. They finally dropped south to what are today's “Stan” ending countries eventually slipping into the corridor that passed through Afghanistan and into northern India and its Ganges River basin. Then, after getting, via spiritual osmosis, Islamized by those they had conquered (who themselves - the conquerees - having just arrived from the Arab Peninsula only a few centuries earlier), these Tatars, or at least their descendants, being over a few generations combined with the Mongols, helped to form the Mogul-Mughals, who then became threat marauders of their initial Chinese genome brothers but now doing so and with new and invigorated blood on their western doorstep. In other words, in only seven hundred years, the merging Mongol-Tatars phenomenally managed to not only wreak devastation on the internals of their southern adversary, but to nearly surround almost all the land-locked regions in the west of their once contiguous and continuous competitors (for world domination) by blending one of the best examples of early sexual aggression (as described above, later to be penned thanks to Freudian theory regarding us militarists) and bow-and-arrow-shooting-on-horseback (both the Mongols and the Tatars, as well as their offspring, were noted for their great martial skills again, shooting with bow and arrows from horseback, as is said often before they could walk) with the inner spirituality attending the peaceful religion component of what has become our current Muslim Brotherhood, otherwise known today as the predominating Islamist-ism version of Mohammadeanism. Never think, nor hopefully say, please, that this author doesn’t understand or at least speak to the great value attending Islam’s two pronged oxymoronic, meaning Borg-like double entendere-styled peaceful killing machine, approach to theocracy-based world civilizing management.

Thus today, Siddhartha's protégé, his Fourteenth Holiness, is trying, like poor old unpopular — being neither from New York City nor Martha's Vineyard — Lyndon Johnson did in providing leadership to our era, to figure out what to do, just as also did the peaceful people's of the world in their standoff of the Nietzsche-underpinned by human perfection National Socialist Party of 1920s-1940s Germany; and as did the American people of the Southern States who decided to fight their would- and eventually to actually-be masters in the north; and the African American slaves who in demonstrating their freedom had to eventually one hundred years later in the twentieth century re-fight their masters. They were composed and comprised of bigotry, ignorance and prejudice based on social ostensibility - presentation, in this instance the color of skin. And although I didn't think this way at the time, I really appreciate those once-thought-to-be trouble-making rebels in the latter referenced group doing all that rebelling (except when their leadership mistakenly linked their cause to the New Left’s Vietnam anti-war movement); because, today when people prejudge my value and worth based on skin wrinkles, that is, instead of skin color, I can and do say "Stop doing that. You're not seeing ME just trying to mind my own business here!" And believe it or not, they pay attention without having to always beat them over the head with a lawsuit. Thanks be to those particular prejudice-fighting-conscious and conscientious Rebels.

The Confident Pacifist

No matter the time lapsed and subsequent lessons learned since the 1960s resurgence of Pacifism as a systemic (to take one example, when incorporated into national foreign policy design and implementation) management modality, particularly within its re-utilization by Peace movements and their thinkers, the thought construct still suffers its traditional primary flaw, which always haunts during implementation. Turning inwardly the human ontological (as defined in Part III of this series) response to traumatic events and finding therein the answers to the dramatic change ongoing to the reality that existed pre event or threat, if done alone (as different from declaratively — fighting with — or otherwise standing up to the offender), belies the systemic elements of that exchange between perps (in our piece here referring to PPs) and victims (also in this paper referenced as targets). When treated only as an intrapsychic aspect of a traumatic consequence upon a people, the outcome of stress reduction for the practitioner, which is seemingly beneficial, can in the alternative effect suppression, then repression of not just the emotion attending the change to reality, but of the change, itself. The original reality (to and of identity) is sundered; and the target doesn't always know, or mostly even rarely has known, it. Thereafter, the brain loses its facility for integrating the organism with the truth. When it includes threat by a maniac, like a PP gone PPH, the Pacifist management application becomes a mishap: psychopathological victimization in the making. Such breakdowns from the identification of actual reality results in not just the prospective demise of the repressionist, but his or her loved ones, like children and others depending on the Pacifist psychopath-perpetrator enabler; and, then of course, when the PP operates within a large enough demographic, the outcome of mass Pacifism or mass peace movement is, as occurred for much of the twentieth century, mass murder.

So it becomes incumbent upon the responsible Pacifist to pose the cognitive check or defensive introspective: "Am I a confident Pacifist?"; which means "Am I using this modality for true discovery of inner peace, the REAL me as I merge with God," which is what peaceful folks are often realigning or even trading out their human identities with, or if also part of the program, "merging / fusing that identity with the cosmos?" (In Pacifism, realignment of human identity with a deity-based abstraction is usually more reliable; merging it as do the humanists, particularly the pathological drug using ones, with the wonderment of being a person unfettered by the deity neuropsychological abstraction and all the complexity that entails, is frequently attended by the lesser wonderful aspects of humanity — noted by and thanks to Behaviorists for staying on their observant toes and codifying aberrancy for us.) Or, "Am I instead really just hiding out in here through meditation in order to avoid seeing what is happening to my, and worse, what is about to happen to my children's, other loved ones' and even neighbors' real worlds?"

If it turns out that the answer is the latter, then someday those users of non-confident Pacifism are going to need serious and psychodynamic-based therapy to figure out what hit them, assuming they are still with us. But if the former, we understand and wish you well in your reliance upon the confidence in your spirtitual, or just humanistic, evolvement. Please hear this opinion if you've not been a student of Pacifism and its relationship to psychopaths: It's hard work to get them (both the Pacifism and the relationship) right; and not doing so can cause some sad outcomes not just for the Pacifist, but lot's of others not affiliated (Ulysses E. McGill; speaking from "O Brother Where Art Thou"on religious involvement of the other characters while on their journey).

Better than that, the four part Westbury management model demonstrates respect for and of such sensibilities and attendant paths these kinds of gifted people travel, and will even protect you confidents in that evolutionary exploration. Nobody's (from within the referenced four part model) going to draft or force you to bring that gentle and deep kindness to the horrors attending rigorous battle.

For example and again as a trainer once of drafted conscientious objectors who unfortunately for them did not get qualified as such, and ending up even less luckily in (1966-1968) an antithetically postured kind of place — the United States Marine Corps, I would like to fight wars in a voting society only with those who choose to be there with me. I would ask that everybody else who wanted to stay away for whatever reason to be able to do so. It doesn't matter to me whether they are just frightened (which I think is a rationally healthy response), against the particular war, or against the whole darned country. That inability to force participation by these different thinking folks would instead force continuous evaluation and defense of our ideals and lives in some instances to always be based on "We the People," as Victor Davis Hanson (in The Father of US All) would opine is the answer in his academic treatise on the matter. Advocates (and their associated supportive leadership) of a particular war like a John Adams, Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, either of the Roosevelts, a Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush again or whomever, would be required to work very very hard at continuously explaining the cause, elucidating it, persuading those who had the particularly necessary kind of courage, for example who were of the capacity to risk all for others, to do the job that it was the right idea.

A long time ago, Pericles invented the wheel that we don't have to reinvent today through his constant oratory style of leadership of the democratically managed Athenians during the same war that Socrates would protest, and in doing so give up his life. Franklin Roosevelt's weekly radio broadcasted "Fireside Chats" provided Americans with their rendition of the same approach. An Internet circulated airline and deceased veteran story posted by a former student from our Westbury class of 1964 — in the families' tribute section, provides another and more current example, showing what non combatants can do to contribute to such efforts, in this instance demonstrating clearly what it means to fight a war in this day and age against a formidable adversary and by "We the People." And not so long ago, June 18, 2011, the "We the People" thesis expanded into nine bus loads of church people, eight heading north from the city of Austin, Texas, and one coming south from Dallas, converging in the center at Fort Hood, Texas, the location of the jihad terrorism forty-three person unarmed and assaulted with thirteen dead attack by the Islamist psychiatrist. Those fine and loving Christians adopted the unit debarking within days for Afghanistan. Each Christian would make it the next year's contribution to attend that tour emotionally and in other ways connected to those troops, sharing their experience of the war. These men and women would not go into that valley of fear and turmoil alone, but with their country. In the first month in theater, they would lose one KIA and four to being wounded, which pain was shared and in part absorbed a half a globe away by staunch, determined and loving Americans, each coming from deep in the heart of Texas. Yes and you BET!!! Islam of the non reformed version. Americans, and particularly those of Texas extraction, LOVE LIFE!!!! It's worth both praying and fighting for, even when we lose the best of what we have as a people to defend against would be supremicists who think like you.

The outcome of Hanson's recommendation would always be that we all live or die, stay free or not by how- and what-ever cultural standards define that idea, or grow more socialist or control oriented cerebral cells or Mecca-focused synaptic potentiations than independent minded ones, based on whether or not us volunteers have it to do the job. We can donate our lives or make the guys on the opposing sides donate theirs, then suffer the consequences of our inadequacies as a population if we (us volunteers) fail. Those who want to stay on the sideline or even in the background can do so, and then they and their like thinkers can live with the outcome whichever way it presents, assuming they DO live, at all.

For me, I've always agreed philosophically with the Man when he proclaimed:

"He which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart; his passport shall be made, And crowns for convoy put into his purse; We would not die in that man's company That fears his fellowship to die with us."

Although that piece is a little dramatic — it plays predominantly on the prospective death aspects of conflict — the principles being addressed regarding conscription is one of the reasons why that quote and the rest of the St. Crispian’s Day Speech from Shakespeare's depiction of King Henry the Vth were placed in the veterans section at Westburyhshouston.com. In the real Battle of Agincourt, 1415, these men faced overwhelming opposition by the French, some estimates placing the disadvantages as high as eight-to-one against the English. So Harry used those words to rouse a group of people to a level of accelerated performance to survive and win no matter that their fates otherwise seemed sealed in doom. Nevertheless, where the struggle of battle is the issue for discussion, I come down on the side of those words shown above and penned a few years later by that greatest of all English writers.

I think a society profoundly needs peaceful oriented people in it. In fact, I admire them greatly. They do wonderful and caring things for us that people like me either cannot or do not do. Nor especially would or do I want to see such epistemologically sensitively charactered people be made subject to the ferocities inherent in battle during war. And, the point of my and other like volunteers in a consensually managed society is to serve in a manner so that our less physically capable or psychologically inclined citizens do not have to fight as would we, unless of course they and their beloved family members and friends are otherwise finally being murdered, slaughtered or otherwise killed in their homes; as has occurred over civilization's history, and is in fact extant today in places where people are unable to collectively or organizationally defend themselves against PP induced extinction.

Regarding, on the other hand, using Pacifism-system-management or things like peace movements to — through application of organizational-hyped projection and in some instances exploitive misappropriation of your fears of inadequacy in facing these kinds of demons, meaning PPHs turned loose on the world, that is — shore up your lack of and in confidence, then you are heading for bad times and, again, taking a lot of unsuspecting folks with you.

"Assuming there's merit to this view, how can we ordinary Pacifists tell if we are confidently so or not? I mean, the last thing we want to do for certain is intentionally hurt somebody, and at least unsuspectingly, too." If you hesitate, that is, you are not sure, or at least pretty much not so, whether or not you are willing to die for those beliefs (that is, ironically passively by not defending yourself), then you are not a confident Pacifist and should probably not proselytize your modality (or at least not foist it upon others) within this referenced four part model, least you interfere with a lot of people's abilities to defend themselves through otherwise doing what you all quite naturally abhore, and understandably no matter how much it needs doing — that is, physically fighting another human being, or bunch of them, because they likely have you in their sights (crosshairs).

Examples of confident Pacifists include, in my study and view, Sergeant Alvin York, His Fourtheenth Holiness and most of his group's six million followers of Tibetan lineage, a few serious American Quakers from Pennsylvania, and the Christian missionaries who risk their lives to save others on the African continent. Examples of the other or non-confident Pacifism include most every member of the Peace movement existing in Europe — to particularly include not just those emitting from within the recesses of that Continent, but also from Britain, then America, and now poor old shamefully-being-affected / -infected Israel.

Here's To The Heroes

In achieving this miraculous ─ that is, advancing some previously believed to be irreconcilable thought conflicts toward homogeneity ─ life learning experience, the Westbury Rebels have not just symbolized but actually adopted and then advanced another and in this instance old twelfth century English attribute once heralded by the Scottish writer Sir Walter Scott of Ivanhoe fame. That seemingly restarted-only-by-Americans thesis and certainly pooh-poohed by my old Moriarity-like arch enemy, the New Left, would conclude, just as did Ivanhoe at the grand climatic meaning of that story in coming to save against all predjudice — a root that raises evil up against good — the incomparable beauty in heart, mind and countenance and ever champion of principle over power, the Jewess, Rebecca; somebody in today's world of apparently ever continuous psychopathic encroachment would have to provide the peaceful, or at least pretty much attempting to be so, epistemologies like Buddhism, Christianity and even the new humanistic kindness spawned in that Scottish Enlightenment, with a parallel and connected understanding, management, and special level of caring, to include feeling and doing it enough to defend the individual lives of those folks administering that goodness.

Hence, those comprising humankind who because of those natural peaceful compositions are not of the capacity to participate in, that is, to administer, that otherwise unthinkable part of life — to defend one's selves with that apparent ugliest of human responses: the application of force, not euphemistically referred to as violence. Killing someone else, almost no matter the apparent necessity of a particular rationale, and absent PPism’s influences upon the doer, sticks with one forever; and it hurts human ontology-defending takers-of-life pretty much the same: deeply forever, too.

Out of all that several hundred years in the making comes this new epistemology reflected by The Westbury Rebel's image of the fighter who with Hellenistic reason and likely genetic, as in human, capacity to care about one’s self, family and neighbors rises above narrower definitions of self-only-seeking interests to stand down some new or even historic master race, whether these imposing psychopathic for sure perpetrator-behaviorists (in this use “behaviorists” refers to hierarchical, authoritarian, statists, or top-to-down order-giving supremacist superiorites) come out of the minds of a Lenin, Mayo Zedong, Stalin, or Islamist (not referencing the US State Department's most recent version in 2011-12 of moderate radical Islam) representing the old (last week's) Muslim Brotherhood. And let's don't forget all the world's fuhrers, emperors and those pre Mexican Aztec Indian noble savagism-styled priests dedicated to keeping (with the application of murder through pyramid-propped ceremonial open chest rapid heart extraction sacrifice) the sun from going down too early during the winter, a couple of pre reformist (meaning a little bit rigid in their asseverations) based Christians who had changed up that originally fine program from sweet love and peaceful inspiration to “Believe like we Cardinals say, or we’ll burn you at the stake!” (Please if you’ve read the other components of this Westbury thesis, I’m NOT referring to our competitor high school, Bellaire Cardinals, for certain; as from the Westbury High School student perspective I had been led early on to understand that that town had already purged most their more collectively aggressive let's-burn-em-up-when-they-don't-do-right Catholics during the city’s post pre Enlightenment period, which put the activity’s goings-on dead center in the middle of their Modernity Reformation.)

Other examples of PP engineering include corporations like the British-based East India Trading Company (having the authorities of a country in its implementation); or any legal system that says “We have the current power, so we'll define what the so-called truths are here. They require ordering you to be who we say you are; and, based on our conclusions forcing you to do what we say to do, no matter what ('what' refers to your input)!”

“Not so!” says the new blended-combo caring / striving, individually reasonable and Pacifism-accepting ─ sort of ─ and now integrated with a fighter epistemology that is the subject of this paper. In this usage, "epistemology" means that the Westbury Rebel consortium of participants in this idea all agree that their human ontology-defending respective components ─ striving-caring; Pacifisms leading to spiritual meaningfulness; reasoning with order derived from the documentation of the declaratives that asseverate that we have an inalienable right to determine who we are and the restrictions that we impose on managers who would interact or otherwise from time to time try to control us; and so importantly the one who fights so that those other components may live to provide their values ─ are all part of the whole: they make up together one definition of what it is to be a real-life and always unique individual or group of human beings entering into the twenty-first century. In this notion, if we don’t have caring, if we don’t strive to find peace with communion and meaning within our lives, our culture, we are lost; we die! “We” refers to the essence of our individual and collective selves; without them, we are goners! If we don’t care with and through the application of reason – think honestly pursuing truth, we die. If we don’t have a fighter who cares enough to defend the existence of the other components, we die! So in the wise, albeit reframed into declarative words of the late philosopher, Rodney King, those realities should, as in better, find a way of getting along.

Since its beginning fifty years ago, the Westbury Rebel has become that “way.” And respect for each component’s contribution to the defense, love and celebration of both our uniquenesses and similarities in and of being human is the methodology. Each element acknowledges and then supports the value of the others, showing acceptance of the immutability of their dependencies and thus their connectednesses 1) inherent in the Pacifist, 2) protest with rigorous honesty to and from reason, 3) adherence to and order derived from the traditions handed down from and by our constitutions, and 4) complimented, protected and thus sustained by those who would give all to defend the others.

Through their confrontations hammered out during war, the social forces’ ideological collisions and attacks of the 1960s and 1970s ─ and then as they were smoothzed out over the rest of this half century, and then applied and affixed in this latest combat for freedom and life ─ upon the pillars of principle heretofore guiding the West, some of which has come from the contiguous orient, the Westbury Rebel, forged in the stress of having to perform rarely with World support, and for the very survival of the free species, made all four contributions mutually inclusive elements of one management epistemology. Moreover, it could exists in the single mind of one individual or systemically in our social grace where some people were composed of more of a single element of the four attributes than say the others. Regardless of the distribution, this new Westbury High School Rebel, as exemplified in the conglomeration of its youth entering adulthood in the years beginning in 1961, would present as a first for world civilization.

I bet I know what you are thinking. “Sometimes the four hand-me-downs don’t seem to get along, still, or don’t you think, Skippy (a sixty-plus years old AKA)?” No matter how hard we try to preempt it, PPs are still wandering around creating their rippling hysterics upon the common man. And, anti-violence Pacifism still collides with the application of violence even when fighting just to defend ourselves. But I say to you doubters, no matter the abstractions that nice folks living in the safer zones keep creating about the great belief in sacrificing Being from the so called here-and-now for that cosmic after life, they’ve learned through the stresses affecting our era that they'll inevitably need to merge Westbury Rebel-given practical and sometimes referenced as “real”, which means somebody had to fight for it, freedom to get along with both them and ourselves. That adaptation includes retaining a physical self, to mean staying alive, with which to do that kind of thinking in this apparently current so-called, but in this instance very properly if not literally noted, more "down-to-earth" one.

Referring to coping for or in the cosmos, who, anyway, wants to live always in anticipation of becoming an ice rock in Saturn’s rings just to get along today, in this life, with some preaching and otherwise victimizing PP who’s gotten out of touch with the New World’s, thanks to the Westbury Rebel and its formulating American-Texan ancestors, way of being? Let’s send the PP into the cosmic universe where IT can live contemplatively in that somewhat distant planet’s orbit as a rock particle; at least instead of us. Solitude like that is good for introspection, which might be beneficial in that Karmic existence for the non-socially compliant and people-caring-deprived. Better than that, I heard — as always thanks to traditional pretty true Texas story-telling; and don't forget, we have NASA just down the block from us Houstonians in Webster, Texas — that the last time Voyager cruised through those rings on its way into outer inner-stellar space exploration, it discovered a gas made in Saturn's clouds that creates empathy alleles in hardrock, particularly when they are cold, genomes. Could there be cosmic-created neuromolecular-based management hope for the hardheadeds?!

Exemplifying this new conclusion by the peaceful aspects of our generations, the Tibetan extra peaceful ones know this about their management modality, remembering from that earlier hard lesson beginning in the eleventh century where the great invading Islamist dual love-killing machine, having in that application of its modality retired the usual peaceful religion lead-in, sent the good and nice Buddhists packing from their Indian homes to relocate deep and up into the Himalayas and as well eventually even southern India, which actually was a very nice place. The Buddhists are said to have lost ten million of their following, which is a lot of confident Pacifists if counting them incrementally, during those centuries. (For me, using statistical representations with the big numbers sometimes seems to miss the point of reporting the tragedy in the first place.) Thus, these new historical remembrance savvies understand the concept of getting out of the way of religiously imbued behaviorists (again, hierarchicals wearing blinders) once they get rolling, whether the behaviorist is a non-secular based Mogul-Islamist or secularite command-oriented social-conscience and -justice, but underpinned by PPism, thinkers like Uncle Mao and the opportunist protege, Pol Pot.

Although to demonstrate sincerity and conviction today, the Tibetans, almost all Buddhists, will for a while longer push the envelope on protest asseverations, as in lighting themselves up via self-immolation from time to time, which works on democracies where somebody’s not just listening but looking for votes, but not with the non-politically affable Chinese Politburo. The little more practical Tibetans have already started asking Westbury Rebels, in the form of the "international community," to come help them out. Six million peacefully inclined souls are not likely to throw down on one and a half billion slightly ambitiously belligerent know-it-all ones, no matter how short they are.

The image of the good (Westbury) Rebel is inextricably linked to those achievements of respect and multiple contributions; the icon represents those parts within us that pull together to determine when it is necessary to emphasize who we are and at any particular time, to in the process for the thousandth exclamation stand up, to include expression of the right to define who and what that "we are" is, and how we will manage or control our own lives despite others who through their elitist arrogance would will it otherwise, had they been or would they be today allowed to so impose. Through our Rebels' quiet perseverences, their heroic dedications to following their beliefs, their striving to do what was right, to give life and sustenance to their own families, to celebrate that experience of Being, to reason with their consciences and those belonging to their neighbors; through their both individual and sometimes shared productivities to also give of those fruits of their labors to others not just in their local communities but people undergoing hardship they didn't even know living in other faraway lands; and their courage to meet their responsibilities attending being counted upon, and again, yes, to even fight like their ancestor American and Texan Rebels for the right of the individual human conscience and its various wonderful presentations to exist when those stalwart ideas were in the process of losing their primacy — through intimidation by a connivingly hostile adversary they were ridiculed to no longer be in vogue, the Westbury High School classes of 1962-1965 with civil courtesy stood their ground, and most magnificently with brave heart. In sustaining America, Westbury High School’s Rebels raised the world up and gave it ever-exhilarating and life-inspiring-until-the-end-of-all-time, freedom.

Where to from here?

Because freedom rubs off onto others, when the Westbury Rebels complete their debates by reasoning with the Pacifist and necessarily argumentative components of their minds, and then applying the results of those syllogisms for analysis within the context of their traditions ─ their constitutions ─ they will find the best way to respond to the freedom-gaining-assistance requests. The Rebels will, then, forthrightly affirmatively, that is magnificently caringly, because some young Rebels will no doubt die in making this sacrifice, save the Tibetans, and then maybe a few innocent Sudanese, even, too. In the meantime, thanks to those Rebels who will step forward to do what is both necessary and difficult for the species of freedom to survive, as did those one hundred eighty-five men and Susannah Dickinson at the Alamo, Fannin's four hundred surrendered troops murdered at Goliad, and the seven hundred and fifty men and Ms. West who showed up next to my home at the San Jacinto River on those both sad and exhilaratingly fateful days in Texican history.

And thanks to my friend Fred Biddle at Westbury High School, classmate of 1964, who would die of the complications from Agent Orange which he came into contact with during his tour with the United States Navy in Vietnam and which would finally take his life in 2006. He moved on sadly, but not before providing us with this society’s most integral survival fourth component ─ a fighter who would defend honest debate and the process of knowing and living out in concert with our own souls, from whatever they are created, as they all uniquely manifest as free Americans. I hope they put him on the memorial Walls recognizing our one hundred thousand Korean, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan War American heroes of our era.

There are others comprising the ontology of the Westbury Rebel. They include those serious non secular-based peace-inducing souls not just like Buddha, but the Christ, Jesus, of course whose impact on the consciousness of rebel being, and as I’m sure you’ve noticed that I’ve, for purposes of ensuring brevity, left out of the discussion in this essay; and then, too, the great humanists oriented writers Locke, Hume and some of your favorites, all speaking to us from so many years ago. And, as referenced in the main essay addressing this subject, let's not forget to give thanks, also, to the new Jews' of our era for the Eleventh Commandment ─ of the "First, Let's-Stop-Getting-Murdered" version ─ now being passed on as their methodological Judeo contribution of and to the Rebel’s fighter component, a seriously important upgrade to those four thousand year old roots influencing us Westerners.

It is the Westbury Rebels, Classes of 1962-1965 from Houston, Texas, and some of their extraordinary brothers and sisters from the wondrous high schools coming from across the America of that testing time, and their children and grandchildren, who did and will continue with the same providence, endurance and desire forever to raise themselves and their world up with this approach to life — therein to save for eternity Western Civilization from extinction. And as iterated in this thesis, then, the Rebels might be able to and likely will add to the world’s survival list even a few other folks like the referenced Himalayans, and maybe also some innocent Christians and the like from Darfur can be given shelter from that group’s murdering masters as well. Even in their Texas modesty and humility, they, the Westbury Rebels from the southwest suburbs of the city of Houston, and who and which metaphorically in this essay stands for all the high schoolers of America, are now — no matter the world's pervading hysterias, sometimes referenced as intellect, which in its frailties misconstues their benevolence — the new Ivanhoes of the planet.

Who knows? Maybe a few of you later Rebs could even go help France, again. God, I’m sure, agrees, no matter saving them from the Hun twice, we still owe the French for our startup. But with their continuously outmoded notions about love, sex and obsessive stuff like that, albeit they've done pretty well with food, Dumas, Montesquieu, Lafayette, de Tocqueville, Hugo, one female saint, Charles the Hammer, Dubois brothers, the french soldiers who valiantly and without adequate supplies or ammunition fought the Vietminh for eight years, and a couple of musicals, “Carmen” and “Les Miserables,” they'll no doubt, because of their psychic peculiarities, never — as in ever unless they start making (excepting the wondrous likes of the "Well-Digger's Daughter," "The Grocerer's Son," and "Queen To Play") better movies(4) — fit into western civilization again, no matter even that they were founders. Nonetheless, God bless Joan of Arc. Save her, please, with reverence and an US Marine Corps honor-bestowing salute to and for our Westbury Rebel hearts and minds forever.

(4)Parenthetically; does anybody, that is, who doesn’t want to go the way of France, care to make good movies? Look to the Koreans ("South" as the North doesn't yet have a theater, nor streaming that supports global movie watching on the Internet) at the beginnings of the twenty-first century for how. I refer the reader to them not just because I’ve enjoyed the entertainment, but because they are the only body of also ontologically-focused knowledge that I’ve found that supports with artistic reflection this thesis hailing the majesty of the Rebel’s and core of American individual and collective greatnesses, hallmarked in and by Westbury High School, classes of 1962-1965, Houston, Texas. And thanks to you pre Westburians, that is, our American parents, brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles, aunts and even a few in-laws for helping that finely gifted world-valued constituency (Koreans) to remain alive, now adding to this whole civilization’s grand experience of good life. Should you not know to which I speak, you might watch the short documentary entitled Chosin. Among other things, it tells the story of today’s elementary school Korean children who tend the memories of those interred in the American War Veteran’s cemetery, trimming the grass on their graves with scissors. And, if you ever suspect that you would like to receive, from both a very trustworthy and inspirational source, a little more clarity regarding who it is that we free folks all are, the Koreans’ll explain it to you.

And, they do it with lots of fun, profound meaning andnot-too-fast-moving multi-national language subtitles.

This section is dedicated to

Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty

They were two state department agents who even against orders and overwhelming numbers of enemy, saved US embassy personnel at Benghazi. While continuing to defend those Americans, the two former Navy SEALS then perished, killed in action in the early morning hours of September 12, 2012. I vote for congress to find a way to give the CMH (Congressional Medal of Honor) to you two fine civilians, but who were in heart still, as in ever continuous, American servicemen.

Semper Fi, American Navy SEALS

From a Westbury High School boy, once upon a time in the up and down history of the, albeit hopefully ever-better managed, free world.